Bibliographic record
Abstract
os artículos que conforman la sección "Saberes y razones" de este número de la revista Desacatos fueron presentados como ponencias en la mesa "Fieldwork Training in the Field: The Global Legacies of a Mexican Model" -"La enseñanza del trabajo de campo: los legados globales de un modelo mexicano"-en la Reunión 110 de la American Anthropological Association (aaa) el 19 de noviembre de 2011, en Montreal, Canadá.En 2010, en la Reunión 109 de la aaa en Nueva Orleans, Frances Rothstein me invitó a presentar una ponencia sobre el curso de antropología mexicana que imparto en la Universidad Iberoamericana (uia) en una sesión de la Comisión de Antropologías del Mundo.Se presentaron varias ponencias sobre las formas de enseñar la antropología en distintas partes del mundo, mas la sesión no despertó el interés de los estadounidenses.Esta circunstancia nos motivó a discutir a Frances Rothstein, Gustavo Lins Ribeiro y a mí sobre el escaso interés de los antropólogos estadounidenses en los aportes de las antropologías de otros países.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
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".