Editors' note: A vision for anthropology and humanism's next three years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we step into our roles as the new editorial team for Anthropology and Humanism (A&H), we—Fiona Murphy and Eva van Roekel as Editors-in-Chief, Johann Sander Puustusmaa as Associate Editor, Susan Wardell as Poetry Editor, Julia Öffen as Fiction Editor, Abigail Greenwood as Editorial Assistant, and Priyanka Borpujari and Rich Thornton as Multimedia Review Editors—wish to share our vision for the journal. We approach our editorial work not as a group of individual voices but as a collective, bound by a shared purpose and practice, and a commitment to working collaboratively. By valuing the process of collective insight and creativity, we infuse the journal with a cohesive spirit that pushes the boundaries of what anthropology and humanism can achieve.
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 | 0.044 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.017 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".