Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1995 I went to Jerez de la Frontera, in southern Spain, with Jean-Marc, my husband (at the time), who was doing ethnomusicological research, and our then two-year-old son, Noah, to carry out six months of fieldwork.The selection of Jerez as a "site" and Gitanos as a "culture" was, for me, a more or less arbitrary choice.The decision to move my research focus from northern Quebec to southern Spain was not principally dictated by a desire to move the ethnographic inquiry from a periphery closer to a centre -a polarity that anyhow quickly fell apart in my original foray into the domain of fieldwork.In the past I had carried out legal ethnographic research in Inuit communities in northern Quebec and had found that this context, though superficially remote and isomorphic, was, upon deeper investigation, linked to, and intersected by, translocal forces impinging on and forging local legal sensibilities.Although Inuit communities had highly distinctive ways of producing locality and indigenizing modernity, they were no more peripheral and locally contained than the island metropolis of Montreal, from where my voyage began.The internal ethnographic logic of a shift in research from northern Quebec to southern Europe was, therefore, not immediately jarring.The decision to shift from northern Quebec to southern Spain was also not dictated by a desire to unearth legal continuities between nomadic or diasporic peoples -the Inuit and the Roma being paradigmatic cases in each point.These categories have lost their conceptual clarity in the face of (to give two small examples) mass migrations of supposedly long-settled Andalusian Gitanos to northern Europe for work in the 1950s and the ongoing travels of supposedly now-settled Inuit south and abroad for education, work, and leisure.Nor was it driven by a desire to shift from public law (criminal law sensibilities) to private law (family law sensibilities).The move was dictated, in fact, by the far more prosaic and pragmatic concerns involved in coordinating research agendas between two ethnographers with divergent research intrigues.I was not adverse to a change of locale.It was hence decided that I would study Gitano family law.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.476 | 0.290 |
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".