The Anthropology of Ontology in Siberia: A Critical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dissolution of the Soviet Union opened a new phase in the anthropological study of Siberia, as researchers from Western Europe, North America, and Japan joined their colleagues of the former Soviet Bloc in the field. This occurred just as a number of new trends emerged in the field of anthropology, including those referred to as “the ontological turn” or “the anthropology of ontology.” To what extent could the latter, originally developed on the basis of research in Amazonia, be applied to Siberia? In this article, we offer a critical re-reading of contributions by some of the authors who have attempted to apply ontological perspectives to Siberian materials. The works we review include both comparative studies of the ontologies of different people, including Siberians, and ethnographies of particular Siberian communities. In conclusion, we illustrate certain criticisms that have been made of ontological approaches by examining how two of the authors under review – Philippe Descola and Rane Willerslev – have drawn on classic ethnographies of northeastern Siberia, particularly the works of Waldemar Bogoras on the Chukchi.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".