Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition of an enclave is multi-dimensional and can consider a mix of geographic, cultural, economic, ethnic, legal, religious and sociological features. Nonetheless, the two fundamental characteristics of enclaves are that they occupy a territory or space and, within these, the inhabitants (or, as least the vast share of them) are distinctive in some way. Perhaps the best way to illustrate an enclave is through an example of two historically related religious groups: one in the two countries of Canada and the United States and the other in Mexico. One is not a rural enclave, and the other is. In the United States, there are now over 600 Amish communities. Clearly the Amish are distinctive with their horse-and-buggy lifestyle, plain dress and use of the Pennsylvania Dutch language (a variant of German). However, they are not an enclave. Non-Amish Canadian and United States citizens are neighbours to the Amish, sharing the same space and, in all but a few places, vastly outnumber the Amish. The area where the Amish live may have a distinctive flavour, such as ‘eggs for sale, no Sunday sales’ signs and horse droppings on the road, but it is not an enclave. To the south in the Mexican state of Chihuahua is a related group known as Old Colony Mennonites. They, too, are distinctive from the majority population in that area, which also outnumbers them. However, what qualifies them as an enclave is that they live in segregated communities known as colonies, even though they may travel to a nearby town for supplies, medical care and other services. Similarly, other religious groups related to both Amish and Old Colony Mennonites are the Hutterites of the Great Plains states of the United States and prairie provinces of middle Canada. They also live in segregated colonies, where they communally share most of the property and are sometimes referred as the oldest socialist society in human history, having adopted this lifestyle over 400 years ago.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.008 |
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".