Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past studies of culture contact have often used the concepts of unidirectional modification of a subordinate population by a socially dominant group. Reevaluations of these ideas suggest that this paradigm is not appropriate for all situations. The examination of power relations in such alternative circumstances provides insights into human agency, as it highlights the dynamic, bidirectional interactions that can occur between two cultures. The relationship between the peoples of ancient Nubia and Egypt provides an excellent opportunity to study alternative power relations in a welldocumented cultural context. During the New Kingdom period (ca. 15501050 BC), Egypt succeeded in occupying most of Nubia. At the site of Tombos, located in northern Sudan, Egyptianization of Nubians makes it impossible to judge from textual and archaeological evidence who ruled Nubia: Egyptian colonists or Nubian leaders. Analysis of cranial measurements of individuals from Tombos and other comparable sites, in conjunction with archaeological indications of ethnicity, suggests that Tombos was inhabited by an ethnically and biologically mixed group of people who used ethnic symbols in advantageous ways.
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 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".