MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164694806 · doi:10.5334/bha.19203

The History of Archaeology as Seen Through the Externalism-Internalism Debate: Historical Development and Current Challenges

2009· article· en· W2164694806 on OpenAlexaff
Óscar Moro Abadía

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the History of Archaeology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternalism and externalismExternalismEpistemologyNothingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While internalism and externalism are nothing more than two categories coined by historians of science during the 1960s (for an introduction to the internalism-externalism debate, see: Basalla 1968; Lakatos 1970; Ben-David 1971; Agassi 1981; Morrell 1981 and Shapin 1992), they are terms often used by historians of archaeology to define the two different interpretations of the history of their discipline (e.g. Meltzer 1989: 17–18; Trigger 2001: 635; Schlanger 2004: 165–166; Trigger 2006: 25; Díaz-Andreu 2007: 4; Kaeser 2008: 10). Why have these terms proven to be so popular?

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the History of ArchaeologySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207