MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W612932617

Culture wars : context, models and anthropologists' accounts

2010· book· en· W612932617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah James, Evelyn Plaice, Christina Toren

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropologyIndigenousContext (archaeology)Shadow (psychology)CivilizationWhite (mutation)SociologyHistoryGender studiesPsychoanalysisArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acknowledgements Introduction: Culture, context and anthropologists' accounts Deborah James and Christina Toren Chapter 1. Alliances And Avoidance: British Interactions with German-Speaking Anthropologists, 1933-1953 Andre Gingrich Chapter 2. Serving the Volk? Afrikaner anthropology revisited John Sharp Chapter 3. 'Making Natives': debating indigeneity in Canada and South Africa Evie Plaice Chapter 4. Culture in the Periphery: Anthropology in the Shadow of Greek Civilisation Dimitra Gefou-Madianou Chapter 5. Culture: the Indigenous Account Alan Barnard Chapter 6. We are All Indigenous Now: Culture vs. Nature in representations of the Balkans Aleksandar BoA'kovi Chapter 7. Which cultures, what contexts, and whose accounts? Anatomies of a moral panic in Southall, multi-ethnic London Gerd Baumann Chapter 8. What about White People's History? - Class, Race and Culture Wars in 21st Century Britain Gillian Evans Chapter 9. A Cosmopolitan Anthropology? Stephen Gudeman Chapter 10. The door in the middle: six conditions for anthropology Joao de Pina-Cabral Chapter 11. Adam Kuper: An Anthropologist's Account Isak Niehaus Notes on Contributors References Index

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.022
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAfrican history and culture studiesFrench-language works237,207