MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508633425 · doi:10.3138/cjh.ach.51.2.rev16

<i>Orderly Anarchy: Sociopolitical Evolution in Aboriginal California</i> by Robert L. Bettinger

2016· article· en· W2508633425 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashley Riley Sousa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical economyPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic historyLaw and economicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orderly Anarchy: Sociopolitical Evolution Aboriginal California, by Robert L. Bettinger. Berkeley, University of California Press, 2015. xii, 286 pp. $70.00 US (cloth). In this provocative reinterpretation of California Indian prehistory, Robert Bettinger argues that California Indian societies north of the Colorado River defy standard theories of sociopolitical evolution. Or rather, Bettinger uses California Indian sociopolitical evolution to challenge the assumption that societies represent an evolutionary relic on the path to agriculture and greater political centralization. He argues that hunter-gatherer systems continued to evolve after the invention of agriculture in ways that put them on equal footing with agriculturalists, and sometimes at a definite advantage (16). He asserts that California Indian societies' persistence hunter-gatherers was not a product of California's geographic or cultural isolation, but was instead a successful economic adaptation that spread from the Owens Valley west into the rest of California and east into the Great Basin. In California, Bettinger defines this advantageous evolutionary trend having produced a political system he calls orderly anarchy, defined as a persistent state of order and productive social interaction the absence of formal authority or means of enforcement (12-13). Bettinger identifies the adoption of the bow the Owens Valley (around 600 CE) the key driver of these changes. As hunters worked smaller and smaller bands, transitioning to a more individualistic mode of procurement, production intensified personal efforts benefitted the individual, rather than the group. As political units became smaller--usually developing into extended family bands--and the individual rewards of production increased, gathering of plant resources also intensified. With the privatization of food (59), older patterns of extensive social and economic obligation and reciprocity gave way to rationalized social interactions between (237), which further rewarded more intensive production. Consequently, individuals pursued economic self-interest by gathering plant resources with ever-greater intensity, populations boomed. Population growth brought territorial expansion, which hastened the spread of these anarchic political and economic practices throughout the rest of California. Bettinger's argument is strongest where he draws upon archaeological evidence to historicize his theory. This is particularly evident descriptions of the impact of the bow on plant intensification, residential mobility, and population growth. The archaeological record makes for a compelling case that Indian societies throughout California developed into more densely settled, less organized, family-based political units. The proliferation of smaller settlements, the movement of these settlements away from marshlands and coastal areas where bow hunting was less productive, and the increased use of acorns over a wide and environmentally diverse expanse of California indicate the profound influence of the bow on settlement patterns and resource exploitation. …

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207