MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W323704921 · doi:10.15173/nexus.v21i1.218

Book review: Bones and Ochre: The Curious Afterlife of the Red Lady of Paviland. Marianne Sommer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, xii + 398 pp, list of archives consulted, 14 figures, 2 appendices.

2009· article· en· W323704921 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Heather T. Battles

Bibliographic record

VenueNEXUS The Canadian Student Journal of Anthropology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Natural History
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleoanthropologyPrehistoryHistoryAfterlifeAnthropologyObject (grammar)ClassicsArt historyArtArchaeologySociologyLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Bones and Ochre, author Marianne Sommer, a historian of science, aims to address her discipline’s neglect of paleoanthropology and prehistoric archeology (11). Sommer situates her book among other recent works in the history of science, such as Keller (2000), Secord (2000), and Daston (2000; 2004), as well as those which contextualize the anthropological sciences, including Hammond (1980), Bowler (1986), and Delisle (2007). Drawing on both published and archival sources, Sommer takes on the large task of tracing the history of paleoanthropology through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as she follows the changing biography of the “Red Lady of Paviland.” She uses this ochre-stained fossil skeleton and its role (along with that of associated artifacts) as an “anthropological object,” at once a natural, material object and meaningful concept (6), to demonstrate the historically contingent nature of anthropological interpretation, as the Red Lady’s age, sex, ethnicity, and place in human history shift multiple times from discovery in 1823 to the present day.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.019

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNEXUS The Canadian Student Journal of AnthropologySame topicHistory of Science and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207