Взгляды А.А. Никишенкова на «Историю первобытного общества»: большие проблемы для антропологии или антропологические проблемы большой важности?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexei Nikishenkov started teaching the Prehistory course in 1986. It was quite clear to him that the prehistoric societies covered this course were diverse and not homogenous. Nikishenkov diverged from the approach presented in the three-volume book “The History of the Primitive Society” edited by Valeriy Alexeev, Abraham Pershitz and Yuriy Semenov, in which different historical, geographical, and economic societies were merged together to form the structure of a nonexistent “Primitive-State Society.” The facts about Australian aboriginals were also applied to Paleolithic Era hunters and gatherers, and the facts about the Inuit people were used as a basis to reconstruct the Neanderthal’s way of life. At the same time, the very facts about the way of life of tribes and peoples from classical anthropological ethnographies – such as the Trobriand Islanders, Tikopia, Dobe !Kung, Yanomamo, Papua-New Guinea highlanders and coast dwellers, among others – are of crucial importance for ethnographical/anthropological education. In history education, the scientific problems of the “prestige economy,” “segmentary society”, “classificatory kinship”, “mythology”, “totemism”, and many others are only discussed in a “History of Primitive Society” class. As a result, discontinuation of this course causes more negative than positive results. The course’s problematic can also become an epistemological tool to investigate contemporary societies such as international corporations, small companies, prison or criminal cultures. A clear understanding of what truly constitutes the culture and social structures of classical anthropological-cases tribes is a necessary condition for the successful investigation of new types of societies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".