MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322028904 · doi:10.1093/ahr/119.3.1010

Marina Mogilner. Homo Imperii: A History of Physical Anthropology in Russia.

2014· article· en· W2322028904 on OpenAlexaff
Sonja Luehrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological anthropologyEthnographyAnthropologyModernityContext (archaeology)Cold warSubject (documents)PoliticsHistorySociologyPolitical scienceLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In contrast to cultural anthropology/ethnography, whose role in the governance of Russia and the Soviet Union has been the subject of several recent books, the history of physical anthropology in Russia is virtually unknown to English-speaking readers. A revised and adapted translation of a study that appeared in Russian in 2008, Marina Mogilner's book not only fills the factual gap, but also puts the politics of the discipline in a larger European context. Mogilner focuses on the period between 1872, when the Society of Lovers of the Natural Sciences, Anthropology, and Ethnography (IOLEAE) accepted a donation to endow the first chair of physical anthropology at Moscow University, and the years before World War I. One of the central figures is Dmitrii Nikolaevich Anuchin, a zoologist who received training from some of the pioneers of physical anthropology in France and Germany and became the first holder of the Moscow chair in 1879. His retirement in 1920 and death in 1923 symbolize the end of an era in which physical anthropology branded itself “the science of modernity” (p. 371).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207