MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2922294011 · doi:10.22372/ijkh.2019.24.1.187

Under the Ancestor’s Eyes: Kinship, Status and Locality in Pre-Modern Korea. By Martina Deuchler. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Asia Center, 2015. xviii, 609 pp [ISBN: 9780674504301]

2019· article· en· W2922294011 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Bohnet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Korean History · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinshipCenter (category theory)HistoryLocalityAncestorDemographyGenealogyAncient historyGerontologyMedicineSociologyAnthropologyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under Ancestors' Eyes: Kinship, Status and Locality in Pre-Modern Korea, is a vast and ambitious work that seeks to explore the development of kinship -and the persistent importance of kinship and inherited social status -in pre-modern Korea from the early Silla dynasty to 1894.The bulk of the book, which is concerned with Andong and Namwŏn from the fifteenth century to the nineteenth, makes extensive use of documents from aristocratic sajok household of those areas to reconstruct the development of sajok status during the Chosŏn period.She works with the ambitious goal of tracing a "native kinship ideology" that placed the social maintenance of aristocratic social status above court politics.As she writes in the conclusion: "The indigenous kinship ideology, with its celebration of status hierarchy and status exclusivity, ran like a red thread through Korea's history from early Silla to the late nineteenth century" (408).The book is organized into five parts, each divided into several chapters.Part I, "Foundations" (15-76), explores the trajectory of a hereditary

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Korean History→Same topicChinese history and philosophy→French-language works237,207→