MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035072688 · doi:10.1387/veleia.20965

Influencia del pensamiento etnológico en la interpretación de Leroi-Gourhan del arte paleolítico

2020· article· es· W3035072688 on OpenAlexaff
Eduardo Palacio‐Pérez, Óscar Moro Abadía

Bibliographic record

VenueVeleia · 2020
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

André Leroi-Gourhan participó en el proceso de modernización que experimentó la prehistoria francesa a mediados del siglo XX. En este contexto trabajó para construir una ciencia prehistórica interdisciplinar que quedara incluida dentro del campo epistemológico de la etnología. En este artículo indagamos en cómo afectó la aproximación que este investigador estableció entre prehistoria y etnología a su comprensión del arte paleolítico. Esta conexión se hace especialmente significativa en la influencia que su maestro, el etnólogo francés Marcel Mauss, tuvo en la conformación de su pensamiento sobre el comportamiento artístico, y en cómo André Leroi-Gourhan trasladó estas ideas al estudio y análisis del arte paleolítico. Adicionalmente discutimos la diferente acogida que tuvieron estas nuevas concepciones sobre el arte prehistórico en las tradiciones arqueológicas francesa, española y anglosajona. Por último, discutimos si la nueva perspectiva que introdujo Leroi-Gourhan del arte prehistórico desde nociones procedentes de la etnología puede explicarse a partir del concepto de interdisciplinariedad.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeleiaSame topicPhilosophical and Theoretical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207