MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100770029 · doi:10.5334/bha.262

Social and Political Factors in Post-Colonial Indian Archaeology: The Case of Sanghol, Punjab

2015· article· en· W2100770029 on OpenAlexafffund
Neha Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the History of Archaeology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMcGill UniversityShastri Indo-Canadian Institute
KeywordsPoliticsInterpretation (philosophy)ArchaeologyGeopoliticsColonialismGovernment (linguistics)Indian oceanHistoryGeographyAnthropologyEthnologyPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I present the case of Sanghol, Punjab, in Indian archaeology to highlight the influence of social and political factors on the interpretation of archaeological data and the preservation of cultural heritage. Using a geographic approach, I show how geopolitical tensions and the desire for internal political stability influenced archaeological practices in post-colonial India. In the aftermath of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984, local archaeological investigations in Sanghol, located 200 kilometres from the sensitive Pakistan-India frontline, piqued the interest of the Archaeological Survey of India, the national department for archaeology and heritage management. The Survey subsequently carried out collaborative field studies in Sanghol between 1986 and 1990, reflecting the changing relationship between the local community and the national government at a time of intense political uncertainty. I argue that there is greater competition and collaboration between knowledge producers in Indian archaeology than has been accepted. This, in turn, impacts our understanding of the practice of national archaeology.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.028
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the History of ArchaeologySame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207