The (F)utility of a Culture Concept?: Conceptualizations of "Culture" From Evolutionism to Post-Modernism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to provide an historical survey and examination of the emergence, employment, and significance of the concept of "culture" in anthropological discourse from evolutionist frameworks to post-modern critiques. Arguably one of the most nebulous concepts within the discipline, "culture", and the discussion of it. has triggered an ongoing and somewhat contentious debate within the discipline. To understand the debate over the (f)utility of the culture concept, it is necessary to examine the theoretical context in which the concept has been used. defended or criticized and. subsequently, to situate that specific context within the larger context of the development of the discipline. The goal of this paper is to provide insight into the complexity of the debate over the centrality, utility, and politics of the culture concept in anthropological theory and practice. The evolution of the concept of culture within anthropology is an historical accretion of ideas and only by examining previous formulations of the concept and the specific historical context within which it arose can we engage with the concept more critically in our current and future anthropological endeavours.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".