The Parallel Lives of Biocultural Synthesis and Clinically Applied Medical Anthropology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I give a brief history of the development of the school of critical medical anthropology (CMA) and trace its influences on both biocultural synthesis and clinically applied medical anthropology. I show how CMA has had a profound influence on biological and medical anthropology and how it has shaped our understandings of the relationships between biology and economics. I argue that although a critical perspective of health and well-being has been an important and necessary addition to both biological anthropology and clinically applied medical anthropology. we ought to be careful to trace how rather than simply assert that economics influence biology and health. I also argue that CMA's political economic perspective utilizes a narrow understanding of culture, and that biocultural synthesis could do well to look beyond a materialist view of culture and engage other theoretical schools in cultural anthropology. Finally. I show one such potential line of engagement between the disciplines by paralleling the concept of adaptation in biological anthropology to the concept of complicity in medical anthropology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.124 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".