Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the role of the anthropologist in the context of local ideas about what we do, and a notable difference between the positive attitudes to our work in the author's long‐standing field sites of Japan, and the more negative ones found in recent research in the culture centres of people who call themselves Indigenous, particularly in Canada. It draws on the history of anthropology in Japan, as well as the practice of the recent experience, to analyse the nature and properties of the field site and to propose ways of building common ground for the processes of objectification and subjectification that take place there. A review of proposals that have emerged for a new anthropology paves the way for some ideas about how anthropologists might build bridges towards re‐establishing good relationships with our former collaborators, then better known as informants. Résumé Le présent article aborde le rôle de l'anthropologue dans le contexte des idées locales sur ce qu'il fait. L'auteure s'intéresse à une différence notable entre les attitudes positives qu'il y a eu vis‐à‐vis de son travail au Japon, son terrain de longue date, et celles plus négatives qu'elle a observées lors de ses recherches récentes dans les centres culturels de peuples qui se présentent comme « indigènes », en particulier au Canada. À partir de l'histoire de l'anthropologie au Japon et de son expérience récente, l'auteure analyse la nature et les propriétés du terrain et propose des manières de constituer un « terrain d'entente » pour les processus d'objectivation et de subjectivation qui s'y déroulent. Un examen des propositions qui se font jour pour une nouvelle anthropologie conduit à formuler plusieurs idées sur la manière dont les anthropologues peuvent jeter des passerelles pour rétablir de bonnes relations avec leurs anciens collaborateurs, ceux qu'ils appelaient alors leurs « informateurs ».
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 | 0.047 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.135 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".