Antropologia dels sentits.Selecció bibliogràfica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si algú volgués revisar I'estat contemporani de l'antropologia dels sentits hauria de començar amb el llibre font editat per David Howes i titulat The Vorieties of Sensory Experience (Howes ed. 199 1), parant una atenció especial a l'assaig introductori de Howes i a la conclusió de Howes i Classen que ofereix un paradigma per estudiar el sensorium (un terme derivat de la primera secció de The Presence of the Word de Walter Ong (1671 que també estd reeditada al volum de Howes). Howes i els seus companys també ofereixen un recompte d'última hora de la seva posició i recerca actual a la pàgina web de la Universitat Concordia (Canada). D'altres qüestions generals recents inclouen Landscopes of the Mind (1990) de Porteous i Worlds of Sense (1993) de Classen, per a els lectors potser volen tornar a la qüesti6 de Whorf a Language, Thought ond Reolity dels diversos móns conceptuals dels hopis i la 'Mitjana europea estdndard' tal i com s'expressa a través del llenguatge (Whorf 1956).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.021 |
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".