Paleoanthropology: Decolonizing and Building for the Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of human evolution, also known as palaeoanthropology, focuses on our distant and more recent human past; what shaped us as a lineage, genus, and species; and how we came to be the diverse single species we are today. However, the bulk of this research, knowledge production, and understanding has been driven by the global North to the exclusion of non‐Western scientists, despite the deep and rich fossil record of formerly colonized regions (Africa, Australia, South and Southeast Asia, North/South America), maintaining a neocolonial dynamic to this day. Coloniality manifests itself in paleoanthropology in multiple ways: who conducts research, who gets recognition and reward, whose voices and worldviews get centered in paleoanthropological models, what is considered to constitute scientific knowledge, where fossil/archaeological material is housed and curated, and who controls access to these collections. This entry explores these manifestations of coloniality, offering corrective practices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".