Colonization dynamics and the diffusion of the Protoaurignacian in Italy and Southern France: the Rhône-Marche corridor and its chrono-cultural implications. - POSTER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human sociality and prosociality in evolutionary context: Of ladders, trees, anthropomorphism, anthropocentrism and evolutionary theory Human sociality (group-level social bonding) and prosociality (spontaneous and enforced cooperation) have been selected for its fitness-enhancing effects and have themselves selected for the suite of genetic, physiological, anatomical, psychological, behavioural, and social adaptations that provide its necessary scaffolding.Much of what we know about these co-evolutionary processes and niche construction events has been garnered through the comparative study of the social behaviour and cognition of extant humans and nonhuman primates.Lay people and scholars from a variety of behavioural sciences are currently engaged in a heated debate about the extent of continuity (deep similarities) between humans and nonhuman primates with regards to their behaviour and cognition.In my talk I will examine some of the arguments in support of anthropomorphism versus anthropodenial and its grounding in evolutionary theory.I will particularly focus on the link between the anthropomorphizing of nonhumans' behaviour, the model of evolution adopted (e.g., ladder, ladderized tree), and the role of anthropomorphism in the defence of model animals, animal welfare, and conservation.I will conclude that a genuine comparative perspective, whatever the level of the biological hierarchy tackled, should be based on a biological approach, as opposed to an anthropocentric approach, as the latter is at odds with genuinely evolutionary (tree) thinking.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".