MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794156224 · doi:10.1080/19442890.2018.1439299

<i>Anchote</i>(<i>Coccinia abyssinica</i>): A Tuber Viewed as a Relative of Women in the Wallaga Region of Southwestern Ethiopia

2018· article· en· W2794156224 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bula Sirika Wayessa

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnoarchaeology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAddis Ababa UniversityUniversity of CalgaryNational Geographic Society
KeywordsNexus (standard)Consumption (sociology)IndigenousPotteryAgency (philosophy)CropGeographyIdentity (music)Meaning (existential)EthnologyBiologySociologySocial scienceAgronomyArtArchaeologyAestheticsEngineeringPsychologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the cultivation, harvesting and consumption of anchote and examines the social and environmental factors that frame the practice. Anchote, an indigenous tuber crop propagated by seed, is primarily cultivated for its edible tubers. In addition to forming part of the dietary staple of the Wallaga Oromo, the tuber is central to the culture and identity of the people. The tuber is anthropomorphized and often referred to as a relative of fertile women. Indeed, the tuber, women and pottery form a nexus of metaphorical meaning integral to Oromo cosmology. Moreover, cultivation of the tuber is framed by the daily interaction between farmers. The perceived agency of farmland is key to understanding how the Wallaga Oromo struggle to retain, modify or alter anchote culture in a swiftly changing world. Anchote is steamed in a clay pot and its processing results in formation of diagnostic use-alteration. This use-alteration may help to envisage antiquity of tuber production and consumption in the Wallaga region of the southwestern Ethiopian highlands.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnoarchaeologySame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207