Editors' note: A vision for anthropology and humanism's next three years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. 1 We are deeply honored to follow in the footsteps of Helena Wulff and the other visionary editors who came before us.A&H has long been a forerunner in the realm of creative anthropology, a space where the boundaries of ethnographic storytelling have been expanded, challenged, and redefined.From its earliest days, the journal stood as a beacon for those who believed that anthropology could be as multifaceted as the human experiences it seeks to illuminate.It carved out a space where theoretical rigor did not preclude aesthetic daring, where the written word could be presented in a variety of genres, styles, and creative forms.Over the years, the specific genres of Ethnographic Poetry and Ethnographic Fiction have become the journal's main trademark-in association also with the Society of Humanistic Anthropology's annual writing prizes-supporting the long-term development of a rich disciplinary praxis in these areas.At the same time, the journal has remained open to a variety of experimental and emergent forms of writing, as well as to essays, editorials, and conversations reflecting on creative anthropological practices in relation to a variety of ethical, reflexive, and scholarly issues; addressing both their responsibilities, and their potentials.It is this legacy that we honor and seek to extend, knowing that it takes courage and care to push against convention while staying true to the core of anthropological inquiry.We aim to nurture and build upon this foundation.Our decision to work collaboratively in our editorial practice going forward enriches our vision and work, reflecting a recognition that deeper or unexpected insights can emerge where diverse voices intersect, where perspectives overlap and feed into one another.To work this way is to challenge the traditional hierarchies of academic production and to embody the kind of relational practice that anthropology itself seeks to both understand and enact.Our vision for contributors and readers of A&H is also rooted in this spirit of co-creation.We want the journal to continue to be a place where the creative, the experimental, and the rigorous coexist-a place where anthropological work can hold the fullness of human experience, including its tensions, contradictions, and flashes of joy.We aim to uphold this with processes of review and publication that complement this ethos.We see A&H not just as a repository for finished pieces but as a living archive of works that push the field forward, that speak with intention and care, in a world fractured yet vivid with potential.This, we believe, is the promise and the challenge of creative anthropology.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".