MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411723385 · doi:10.1093/jrs/feaf040

Homo Itinerans: Towards a Global Ethnography of Afghanistan By Alessandro Monsutti

2025· article· en· W4411723385 on OpenAlexaff
Lel Khalesimoghaddam Ghaen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Refugee Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian American and Pacific Histories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographySociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alessandro Monsutti’s ethnography introduces a cogent rethinking of Afghan mobility. Monsutti’s long-term engagement with Afghan communities, built on two decades of ethnographic research, allows him to offer a nuanced perspective on how Afghans navigate and resist global social, political, and economic systems through mobility. In Homo Itinerans: Towards a Global Ethnography of Afghanistan, Monsutti examines Afghan mobility through the lens of global inequalities, colonial legacies, and the challenges of the post-2002 reconstruction. This book is the outcome of a long-time multi-sited ethnography that Monsutti has conducted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, EU, the USA, and Australia. He contends that US counterinsurgency and reconstruction strategies often mimic British colonial practices, where external standards aim to regulate Afghan society (Monsutti 2020, Chapter 1). This colonial gaze, entangled with the war industry since the Cold War, positions reconstruction as pacification of Afghan society rather than genuine development (Ibid). Monsutti critiques international bodies like the UN for relying on Western-educated Afghan elites to drive societal transformation, while on-the-ground realities indicate a fragmented sovereignty dominated by international influence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Refugee StudiesSame topicAsian American and Pacific HistoriesFrench-language works237,207