MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920059952 · doi:10.7146/ta.v0i61.106859

PÅ GENBESØG I MAGISKE VERDENER: Et essay

2010· article· en· W2920059952 on OpenAlexaff
Inger Sjørslev

Bibliographic record

VenueTidsskriftet Antropologi · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)MAGIC (telescope)ExhibitionAestheticsSacrificeEpistemologyArtSociologyPhilosophyArt historyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In classical anthropological literature, magic has been dealt with as technologies that are related to uncertainty and control. The present essay sets out from these themes, but argues that a theory of magic, as well, has to look at the triangle between matter or substance, form and holistic images, and techniques and actions. The incentive to discuss magic in the light of newer anthropological theory of materiality derives from a visit to the exhibition at the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam: Vodou – a way of life. On the basis of impressions from this exhibition, particularly the encounter with the figures of the bizango spirits, the article suggests that magic has to do with materiality in ways that can be further illuminated by a closer attention to fetish and to sacrifice. The elaboration of materiality into different forms is salient in both of these phenomena. Magic, then, has to do with the shaping of matter, whether in form of packages where the substance of content may be of significance, or in the form of destruction. Keywords: materiality, structuring, technique, fetich, sacrifice, voodoo.

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)0.003
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTidsskriftet AntropologiSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207