The disciplinary and epistemological structure of paleoanthropology: one hundred and fifty years of development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to provide a reflection on the nature of the several disciplines that contribute to the field of human evolution or paleoanthropology. An historical approach is adopted on the grounds that the nature of their relationship is perhaps more clearly seen if a dynamic perspective is adopted; that is, if paleoanthropology is analysed as an historical entity in constant flux from 1860 to today. By following the debates over human phylogeny and various scenarios of hominization separately, I will show that paleoanthropology was in the early decades of its development only very loosely organized around a host of disciplines, disciplines that went through a unification process as the twentieth century progressed under a rapidly improving empirical basis. Interestingly, to analyse the disciplinary structure of paleoanthropology from an historical approach is also to reveal its epistemological structure as both are intimately intertwined. It will be suggested that paleoanthropology's disciplinary and epistemological structure can be understood as a multi-level organization comprising at least four distinct explanatory levels characterized by unidirectional and/or bidirectional flows of information, depending on the specific circumstances: (1) a meta-theoretical foundation; (2) a level concerned with phylogeny building; (3) a level which takes up evolutionary theories and models; and (4) a level devoted to scenarios of hominization.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".