MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387612798 · doi:10.1086/727464

When Smoking Pipes Grow Fins

2023· article· en· W4387612798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Craig N. Cipolla

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Anthropology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Assemblage (archaeology)Articulation (sociology)Representation (politics)SemioticsIndigenousDualismSociologyEpistemologyAestheticsHistoryArchaeologyArtEcologyPhilosophyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper chronicles how Indigenous-made stone “vasiform” smoking pipes from Ontario foster fresh perspectives on archaeological and anthropological approaches to representation and meaning. These discussions often undervalue the material world, whereas recent emphases on “things themselves” tend to neglect issues of representation, meaning, and symbolism. Variations in smoking pipe form, including several examples of pipes that resemble fish, point to the importance of more-than-representational approaches. Considering how and why a few pipes “grew fins” while the majority remained “bedded down” speaks to the importance of beginning discussions of representation and meaning from postanthropocentric vantages that recognize the vibrancy of matter. The pipes offer an opportunity to revisit the long-standing tension between matter and meaning, providing new angles of articulation with two complementary lines of thought—assemblage theory and Peircean semiotics. Both theories align with “nonrepresentational” critiques, postanthropocentrism, and relational ontologies, but archaeologists rarely consider the two together. The emergent relationship between vasiform pipes, assemblage theory, and Peircean semiotics documented in this article offers useful ways to continue challenging the deep-seated matter-meaning dualism in archaeological thought.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.335 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent AnthropologySame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207