MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390239487 · doi:10.30884/seh/2023.02.04

Social Stratification, Genealogical Distance, and State Formation in Early Hawaii and the Central Andes: Steps, Slopes, and Off-Ramps in Social Evolution

2023· article· en· W4390239487 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Jennings, Timothy Earle

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Evolution & History · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPacific and Southeast Asian Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolityState formationEliteSocial stratificationPoliticsRulerState (computer science)Stratification (seeds)PropositionSocial complexityGeographySocial organizationEcological successionHistoryGenealogyEconomic geographySociologyAnthropologyPolitical scienceEcologyBiologySocial scienceLawPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Henri J. M. Claessen proposed that the early state came into being by a process of social stratification that led to the creation of genealogical distance between a ruler and the ruled. This article evaluates Claessen's proposition by comparing the development of early large-scale polities in Hawaii and the central Andes. The process of state formation in Hawaii largely followed Claessen's proposed ‘slope’ of political development – by the end of the sequence, kings were seen as gods in the protohistoric Hawaiian state. The central Andean Wari polity, in contrast, took an ‘off-ramp’ from Claessen's slope to a more heterarchical political structure of competing elite-led corporate groups. We explain some of the possible reasons for the differences between our case studies and emphasize that there are many branching pathways to greater political complexity in the ancient world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Evolution & HistorySame topicPacific and Southeast Asian StudiesFrench-language works237,207