Bibliographic record
Abstract
For one moving into a new cultural area late in career I was surprised at some of the responses received in answer to my inquiries by colleagues who had preceded me.There were those who displayed an unexpected territoriality, blocking out large areas of the Pacific for their future study or for the future study of their students.Then there were those who expressed the view that with the large number of anthropological theses and publications that had been produced there was little left to do in the area.While I was somewhat discouraged by these negative reactions, on balance, those who were helpful and encouraging far outnumbered such naysayers, as indicated below.My original plan had been to study a Polynesian outlier in the then-British Solomon Islands Protectorate.Roger Green and Tim Bayliss-Smith gave encouragement to me in this plan.With negative response from the government in that region I turned my interests in a new direction.Ivan Brady first suggested that I explore the possibility of research in the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific, and he has continued to offer encouragement through the years.Saul Riesenberg suggested Ngatik and Pingelap atolls as appropriate places for my study.Bruce VanDyke sent a tape from Ngatik to aid me in my decision, but it was Dr. Newton E. Morton whose descriptions of Pingelap were most instrumental in my choosing that atoll for study, a decision which proved most fortunate.Dr. Morton provided me with copies of his genealogies and offered advice and provided valuable information whenever I passed through Hawaii on my trips to Micronesia.Others whom I met with in Hawaii have been sources of psychological and professional support.Most prominent of these have been
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.501 | 0.348 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".