BARREN GROUND: RE-CONCEIVING HONOUR AND SHAME IN THE FIELD OF MEDITERRANEAN ETHNOGRAPHY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the differences in perspective that define the field, ethnographers of Mediterranean societies consider the cultural values of honour and shame in a remarkably consistent and theoretically im poverished manner. The article attempts to demonstrate that the rhe torical strategies of structural functionalism continue to characterize discussions of honour and shame in Mediterranean societies, even when anthropologists appear to have rejected this theoretical para digm. Arguing that to conceptualize the values of honour and shame as a type of juridical code does representational violence to the lives and experiences of Mediterranean peoples, the author advocates a practice-oriented theoretical approach to these cultural values that is more sensitive to social relations of inequality and difference. Resume: En depit des differences de perspective qui definissent le champ, les ethnographes de societes mediterraneennes considerent les valeurs culturelles d'honneur et de honte de fagon remarquablement consistante et theoriquement appauvrie. L'article essaye de demontrer que les strategies rhetoriques du fonctionnalisme structurel continuent a caracteriser les discussions traitant de l'honneur et de la honte dans les societes mediterraneennes, meme si les anthropologues semblent avoir rejete ce paradigme theorique. En raisonnant que cette concep tualisation du complexe honneur/honte en tant que code juridique n'est que representation injuste de la vie et de l'experience des peu ples mediterraneans, 1'auteure recommande une approche theorique et pratique vis-a-vis ces valeurs culturelles, plus sensible aux relations sociales d'inegalite et de difference.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".