Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contends that proponents of various forms of Indigenous Archaeology base their argument on a paradigm of Aboriginal essentialism ("Aboriginalism") that is derived from the long-discarded concept of Primitive Man. The development of Aboriginalism is explored as a mutually reinforcing process between Indigenous and Western scholars, based on evidence that is at best anecdotal. The adoption of this flawed concept by archaeologists, Western publics, and Indigenous people themselves has led to problematic assumptions that have negative consequences for both the practice of archaeology and for the lives of those who identify themselves as Indigenous. Archaeologists can usefully challenge the historical assumptions on which the paradigm of Aboriginalism is based: the belief that local societies have endured as stable entities over great periods of time, and the consequent projection of contemporary ethnic identities into the deep past. Such a challenge confronts a significant element of the intellectual climate that allows marginalized groups to exist as permanent aliens in the societies of settler nations.
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 | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".