Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than most, this book is a product of conversation.At a time when the world was in lockdown and social interaction took its place as nostalgic reflection on good times past, conversation simmered between two editors, a bunch of authors in far-flung living rooms and makeshift offices, and a French philosopher of science whose life had fallen agonizingly short of experiencing the next big global cataclysm.The fire was lit under the boiling pot of brimming energy driving this partic u lar knotty conversation when we, the editors, met on a transatlantic flight from Amsterdam to Vancouver in November 2019.Back then, in the heady days of plenty, little did we know that the Vancouver aaa meetings would be one of the final opportunities for large-scale face-to-face interaction for more than two years.In March 2020, lockdown hit us both hard.Homeschooling, online teaching, our kitchen tables and children's bedrooms hosting staff meetings, hastily rearranged workshops, and, eventually, hours of talk about Michel Serres.Serres, our companion on our individual academic journeys for almost two decades, became the third person in our coviD-era relationship.We pondered: Why had more anthropologists not delved into Serresian meandering through time and disciplines?Why should anyone dedicate more ink to yet another French white male philosopher?Why had we now turned to Serres to shine a light through our collapsing pandemic world?In Serresian style, the conversations twisted and turned, became tangled and shot off branches in weird and wonderful directions.We agreed that Serres somehow spoke to "the anthropological proj ect"-a deliberately porous category, if ever there was-but we could not quite pin down how or why.Perhaps this was the point; Serres drifts excitedly in pursuit x /
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads 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".