Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author relies on her experience as Anthropology and Education Quarterly's chief editor to start a delineation of the different movements in anthropology and education around the world. She inquires into the links between researchers in anthropology, ethnography, and educational sociology through the networks they build up, the meaning they give to words, the similarities in their approaches, and the creolization of a country’s specific ideas or of one language environment to another. The weight of institutional and political contexts at the national or international level that influence research is considered through the study of recurring topics. The author is aware of the risky ambition of her project. Yet she has embarked on it to encourage researchers, through comparisons, to challenge highly insular research programs and explanatory models. The purpose is to delineate the framework and the context for the development of their national and international references, their issues and their contributions. As she distinguishes anthropology from philosophical education in Germany, the different movements of cultural anthropology in the English-speaking world (the United States, Great Britain, English-speaking Canada), social anthropology and educational ethnography in France, the various approaches in the rest of the French-speaking world, in Russia, eastern Europe, in Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, she also reveals the social and cultural influences that impact anthropology and education. In her conclusion, she asserts that the term “anthropologies of education” (in the plural) is more appropriate. She adds that a global experience of school does not create a global educational science and calls for in-depth research on the networks between anthropologists and ethnographers in education, on national traditions, their origins, their modes of publication, and of creolization.
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 | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".