Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recurring theme of archaeology’s recent engagement with ontology is the idea that epistemological questions are not particularly relevant (or worse, antithetical) to a critically ontological engagement with Indigenous or non-Western knowledge systems. An examination of certain Native American rock art practices, conversely, suggests the need for archaeologists to better theorize the relationship between epistemology and ontology, rather than simply shift the traditional emphasis of theory from the first to the second. Drawing on the work of Karen Barad, I argue for the role of knowledge practices, or routine forms of action and attention, in shaping emergent worlds—not just their perception or imagination by enculturated subjects—but the worlds themselves. Examining rock art, stone cairns, and medicine wheels of the Canadian Shield and Northern Plains, I suggest that a landscape of palpable ancestral agency is realized for many Indigenous people in particular modes and media of action and attention. This leads to a view of ontology as sets of relations that tend to disclose (and foreclose) others within the self-transforming processes of emergent assemblages. Knowledge practices, and their attendant onto-epistemologies, cannot be divorced from these ontogenetic processes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".