Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our chief brings jealousy to the faces . . . by . . . Giving again and again oil feasts to all the tribes . . . I am the great chief who makes people ashamed . . . I am the only great tree, I am the chief! You are my subordinates, tribes . . . I am he who gives these sea otters to the chiefs, the guests, the chiefs of the tribes. I am he who gives canoes to the chiefs, the guests, the chiefs of the tribes. – From Benedict 1934:175–8 With the appearance of complex (transegalitarian) hunter/gatherers, we enter into an entirely different cultural realm – one that is not egalitarian and does not shy away from competition based on economic production to underwrite bids for greater influence and greater benefits. Feasts become the arenas for economically based competition and many other gambits for power, prestige, spouses, and capital. Feasts become the venues for social and political negotiations; feasts are the seat of village governments (Beynon 2000:31; Clarke 2001:163; 1998). At times, the importance of feasts, the array of different kinds of feasts, and the exalted importance of feasts become bewildering. There are lavish feasts for coming of age, for marriages, funerals, building houses, solstices, succession to political roles, and many other events. Nothing could be further from the behavior of the simple foragers that we saw in the preceding chapter. To understand the nature of and the reasons for this change, I discuss in further detail some of the characteristics of these societies and some of the ideas about why such changes took place. We then explore the principles on which transegalitarian feasting was based and some of the resulting characteristics, followed by a sampling of ethnographic and archaeological examples (see Figure 4.1).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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.
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".