<scp>Lisa Philip Valentine & Regna Darnell</scp> (eds.), <i>Theorizing the Americanist tradition</i>. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Pp. 397. Hb $29.95.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recurring theme in late twentieth century anthropology has been the need to reinvent questions, subject matter, theoretical underpinnings, methods, and ethics central to our research. While all disciplines have their own historical narratives, those told about anthropology are especially fractured along lines of continuity and transformation. Narratives of rupture gained an upper hand during the final decades of the twentieth century, undoubtedly as part of an effort to construct a disciplinary future not so inevitably shaped by forces of a colonial past. But one consequence of imaginative reinvention can be forgetfulness that merges with hubris when we fail to acknowledge how old legacies contribute to current work. Narratives of connection are emerging again, reclaiming a legacy grounded in critical ethnography that engages the lives of real people, partly as a reaction to the detachment of text-based “cultural studies.”
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.053 |
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".