MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292045957 · doi:10.1558/jca.v2i2.28206

Why Archaeologists Misrepresent Their Practice

2016· article· en· W2292045957 on OpenAlex
Richard M. Hutchings, Marina La Salle

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Archaeology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisrepresentationEliteIndigenousAssertionArchaeology of the AmericasGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Historical archaeologyArchaeologyDemocratizationHistoryResource (disambiguation)SociologyDemocracyPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The statement “we are all archaeologists now” is an assertion of archaeology’s democratization thus goodness. It is also a gross misrepresentation of how archaeology is practiced daily, especially in colonized settings like the United States and Canada. Archaeology is today—as it has always been—an elite undertaking that serves elite class interests. Since 1950, archaeology has become increasingly bureaucratized and corporatized, and today the vast majority of archaeology is state-sanctioned but highly privatized cultural resource management. As a technology of government designed to control living Indigenous people and their resources, we suggest archaeology is becoming radically less democratic, not more, and ask why archaeologists so routinely misrepresent their profession.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.267 · 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