A critical paradigm for the histories of anthropology: the generalization of transportable knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents a discussion focused on Regna Darnell's concepts of critical paradigm and transportable knowledge in relation to contemporary studies in history of anthropology, put forward in her essay based on the text written for the keynote address at EASA's History of Anthropology Network and reproduced in BEROSE International Encyclopaedia of the Histories of Anthropology. Assessing the changing disciplinary scene of humanities and social sciences, Darnell argues that an urgent rethinking of paradigmatic bases underlying the practices of historians of anthropology is necessary. She reviews the legacy of George Stocking, Jr., and the often-discussed opposition between historicism and presentism, as well as the legacy of Boas and his contemporaries, to examine the paths taken and not taken in understanding the historical development of the anthropological knowledge. Darnell's arguments and suggestions are discussed by an international group of scholars in their contributions including “Presentism and Historicism in the Histories of Anthropology in Russia and North America” by Sergei Alymov, “After the History of Anthropology” by Dmitry Arzyutov, “On the Critical Paradigm for the History of Anthropology” by Jason M. Gibson, “Doing History of Anthropology in a Post-Colonial and International World” by Frédéric Keck, “Boas and Stocking in Russian Anthropology (on ‘Sacred Cows')” by Igor Kuznetsov, “The Struggle for Recognition and Parahistory” by Axel Lazzari, “On the Margins of Darnell's ‘Critical Paradigm'” by Herbert S. Lewis, “Paradigmatic Basics, or What Do We Mean by Paradigm?” by Nancy J. Parezo, “Writing Transnational Histories of Anthropologies” by Gustavo Lins Ribeiro, “History(-ies) of Anthropology: Some Remarks on Reflexivity” by Nathalie Richard, and “Distance as an Issue in the Discipline's History Research” by Sergei Sokolovskiy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".