Palaces of Hope: The Anthropology by Organizations: Legal Knowledge and the UN's Ethnological Imagination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are used to thinking of global institutions in terms of how they respond to security crises, human rights abuses, and development opportunities in an uncertain world, but it is less often noted that they are also among world's most significant producers of knowledge. This knowledge includes understandings of human life and its variety - something that we might recognize as anthropology, or what I have referred to as the law's legal anthropology (Niezen 2012). They prioritize improving conditions in world through powers of bureaucracy and law, and often do so by first identifying and categorizing those who are in need of recognition and rights, or their particular qualities or practices that can be conducive to peace and prosperity. These ideas constitute, through great variety of interconnected UN agencies and global NGOs, a kind of composite vision of human life, a form of instrumental, rights-oriented, managerial, but, oddly, at same time, publicly engaged and participatory anthropology. The combination of ideas about human with ideas having to do with rights, dignity, security, and development is powerfully compelling, influencing not just officials and activists, but also public consumers of ideas about rights and their human subjects. As I intend to show here, involvement of these institutions in anthropological knowledge probably reaches a wider audience than (while drawing from and influencing) concepts of academic anthropology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".