Introduction: The “Ontological Turn” in Russian Anthropology: Turning towards Materiality, Nonhuman Agency, and Hybridity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors in this thematic issue reflect on the current “ontological turn” in Russian social sciences and humanities, and especially on the influence the turn exerts on various anthropological sub-disciplines and research domains. This introduction reviews publications in Russian academic journals, article collections, theses, books, and book chapters that best illustrate current ontological preoccupations in Russian anthropology. The ontological turn encompasses diverse interests and topics and is often labelled as “material,” “object-oriented,” “speculative-realist,” or “praxiographic.” In fact, we are dealing with multiple interdisciplinary “turns” that intersect and overlap, while interlinking many domains of the biological sciences, geographical sciences, social sciences, and humanities. In Russia, the ontological turn (actor-network theory, material semiotics, symmetrical anthropology, sociology of translation, object-oriented ontology, speculative realism) unfolds in different domains of research that can be grouped into four main fields: 1) medical anthropology, body studies, and death studies; 2) urban anthropology; 3) anthropology of science and techno-anthropology; 4) museum anthropology and material culture studies. The contributions to this issue illustrate current research in medical anthropology, body and death studies, urban anthropology, technoanthropology, museum studies, as well as Siberian ethnography using the perspectivist model.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".