Theorizing ethnographically: No shares without acknowledgement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As anthropologists have long recognized, a share is not a gift. Shares belong to owners. Only someone acknowledged to be the owner of a share of valued goods is entitled to demand the portion that properly belongs to them. This insight invites further ethnographic research and theorizing. What kind of person is acknowledged to be the proper owner of a share? What are the conditions under which demands based on ownership are recognized or disallowed? Where acknowledgement is lacking, how can it be achieved? To address these questions, I draw on my ethnographic research in Indonesia. Indigenous highlanders I encountered in Sulawesi in the 1990s grounded ownership in an individual's labour. Contra popular assumptions about the naturally communitarian nature of Indigenous people, social membership in a kin group or community furnished scant grounds for sharing valued goods such as labour or food. Research I conducted with Pujo Semedi in 2010–2015 in Kalimantan's oil palm zone indicated that villagers whose land had been occupied by plantation corporations were convinced they were rightful owners of a share of plantation wealth. Yet, racial tropes inherited from the colonial era together with the plantations’ social, juridical and spatial arrangements impeded acknowledgement. Plantation corporations and their government allies saw no grounds on which to compensate villagers for their losses, include them in benefits or involve them in plantation affairs. Drawing upon these ethnographic sources and comparative material, I further theorize why there can be no sharing without acknowledgement.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.001 |
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 it