MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124797812 · doi:10.1177/1469605308099371

Entanglement and tinkering

2009· article· en· W2124797812 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Martindale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Archaeology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)SituatedHegemonyIdentity (music)EpistemologyQuantum entanglementSociologyNormativeAestheticsPoliticsHistoryPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of `entanglement' in contact encounters emphasizes the power and agency of individuals, particularly Indigenous leaders, to confront colonial and capitalist hegemonic forces. Consequently, entanglement presents a necessary comparison of scale, a link between the situated actions of individuals and the broader patterns of history. While the former is theoretically complex, the latter is often contrasted as a static and stagnant essentialization. Naïvely invoked, long-term structured history simply replaces normative `culture' as a backdrop for individual agency with `identity', a modern-sounding recreation of a simplified model of history. That historical trends can cross generations is clear, but their source is likely to include the non-discursive aesthetics in the structure of agency-structure models. Rather than static, such capacities are inertial, changing only with the substantial consensus of many individuals. Northern Tsimshian post-contact archaeology has evidence of both strategic action and aesthetic shifts, presenting a model of structural history that includes evidence of entanglement at many scales, including in the most tenacious aspects of identity. These data suggest that there is a significant role for archaeology in unravelling the complex, and at times contradictory, historical frameworks found in contact scenarios.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social ArchaeologySame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207