Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diane King captures the sentiment undergirding this book by quoting VirginiaDominguez and “returning to ‘bonds of affection for people or places’”(p. 10) in the conclusion of her introduction. She sums up the book’s chaptersas “hav[ing] in common attention to various ways of belonging in (and,in the case of the European headscarf debates, adjacent to and with referenceto) the Middle East. All treat Middle Eastern collectives as sites of what Herzfeld(2005: 6) calls the ‘cultural intimacy’ of nationalism, in which particularnationalisms are composed of ‘the details of everyday life – symbolism, commensality,family and friendship’” (p. 1). Each chapter shows how “belonging”is contested and destabilized in and by imagined communities andfragile states. By addressing questions of violence, moreover, each articlehighlights “both belonging’s messiness and its joys” (p. 10).King’s edited volume ties together six articles and an introduction, allof which previously appeared in Identities, a peer-reviewed cultural anthropologyjournal published by Routledge. With the exception of the fiftharticle, which appeared in a separate volume, the articles were published asa special edition, also entitled “Middle Eastern Belongings.” ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".