MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003519515 · doi:10.1177/0891241607303964

Writing History for Eternity

2008· article· en· W2003519515 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Ethnography · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipEthnographyValue (mathematics)EternitySociologyHistoryLiteratureAnthropologyEpistemologyLawPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whereas ethnography is generally envisioned as a nineteenth- and twentieth-century development, a text on How to Write History developed by Lucian (a Greek-speaking Syrian in the classical Roman era) provides an instructive reference point for contemporary scholarship. Envisioning history as an account of some event or developmental feature of community life, Lucian insists that these accounts will be of greatest value when written for posterity rather than “the historical moment.” While identifying a number of lesser flaws and more substantial failures in people's attempts to develop histories, Lucian also indicates how these projects might more viably be pursued. Approaching Lucian's text as an instance of transhistorical scholarship as well as a cross-cultural reference point for ethnographic analysis and building on a somewhat parallel commentary developed by Michael Schwalbe (1995), this article considers the lessons of both statements for contemporary considerations of human group life.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it