The Magic Animals of Tierradentro - Magic of Whom? (Los Animales Mágicos De Tierradentro - Magia De Quién?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
paper discusses the issue of aesthetic representations of archaeological origin and their interpretation by archaeologists who dare to make scientific inferences on the meaning such works may have had for the original audiences. empirical referent are the magic animals of Tierradentro ceramics, interpreted by archaeologist Alvaro Chaves. Since he is very scant in the description of his inferential process, the attention is turned onto the inferences made by Reichel-Dolmatoff concerning some stone statues of San Agustin. topics are connected because Reichel took the Nasa (Paez) mythology of Tierradentro as starting point for his creation of the jaguar-shaman complex that became famous in the world archaeological literature. paper follows the idea of a Canadian anthropologist (Marie France Labrecque), who reacted to Michael Taussig's Shamanism, colonialism and the wild man: a study in terror and healing is this way: The author, verbose, does not spare any circumvolution in reasoning. He does not loose any occasion to provoke the reader noting once and again that, as far as knowledge is power, analysis of this power can be seen as a magical rite. In this sense, the anthropologist is doubtless a constituent part of the contradictory process of colonization and becomes himself a shaman.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".