Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photography as main research data has not been used in anthropology to the extent that it was by Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in the late 1930s. This paper takes a critical examination of their use and analysis of photographs in their research in Highland Bali, to demonstrate that their subsequent conclusions may be misrepresentative of the people they were studying. By reviewing analyses by Ira Jacknis and Gerald Sullivan, along with more historical and theoretical considerations, it will become apparent that although the couple exhaustively used the photographic medium, their analysis and conclusions seem to have been manipulated to suit their original hypothesis. Their conclusions being drawn from a small portion of the unprecedented corpus of material, the bias from one of their funding bodies and their lack of collaborative analysis with the research subjects may have been the causes of this possible misrepresentation, although further research would be needed in order to support this claim. The paper concludes with a brief analysis of how the Mead and Bateson project should be viewed by contemporary students of visual anthropology, specifically with respect to reflexivity, collaboration. and contemporary ethical considerations. Finally, the paper calls for further research to be done with this material.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".