Farmers or hunter-gatherers? The Dark Emu debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour une publication sur Épisciences. Dark Emu (2014), a book written by Bruce Pascoe, argues for a drastic revision of the vision of Aboriginal peoples at the time of the colonisation of Australia. Traditionally presented as nomadic hunter-gatherers, they were in fact for the most part villagers who applied some forms of agriculture and fish farming, all of which were concealed by those who wanted to appropriate their lands, thus forging a false version perpetuated by anthropological tradition. This provocative thesis has had a huge impact in Australia, where it has been the subject of much controversy. Peter Sutton and Keryn Walshe’s book is the first rebuttal by academic specialists–who are also deeply involved in the defence of the rights of Aboriginal communities. Le livre Dark Emu (2014), écrit par Bruce Pascoe, plaide pour une révision drastique de la vision des peuples aborigènes au moment de la colonisation de l’Australie. Traditionnellement présentés comme des chasseurs-cueilleurs nomades, ceux-ci auraient en réalité été pour une bonne part des villageois pratiquant certaines formes d’agriculture et de pisciculture, autant d’éléments dissimulés par ceux qui voulaient s’approprier leurs terres, forgeant ainsi une version mensongère perpétuée par la tradition anthropologique. Cette thèse provocatrice a connu un immense retentissement en Australie, où elle a suscité de très âpres polémiques. Le livre de Peter Sutton et Keryn Walshe en constitue la première réfutation émanant de spécialistes académiques – par ailleurs, profondément impliqués dans la défense des droits des communautés aborigènes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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".