The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The strange afterlife of biodeterministic imagination
Abstract
The commentaries debated numerous points in the target article. Many questioned the existence of a crisis and the benefits of a paradigm shift, even though none countered the listed signs of a crisis. Paradigm shifts are an important way that science progresses. There remains hope for a unifying theory, and for a reawakening of an ambitious science of visual attention.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Battle‐Baptiste, W. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315096254 · Cited by 172
Self-citationRace and diversity in U.S. Biological Anthropology: A decade of AAPA initiatives
Antón, S. C., Malhi, R. S., & Fuentes, A. (2018) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.23382 · Cited by 70
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dempsey, K. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0274 · Cited by 2
Puddu, M. (2025) · Cambridge Archaeological Journal · doi:10.1017/s0959774325100139 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Battle-Baptiste, W.
- Venue
- Archaeological Dialogues
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-05-15
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-27
- ISSN
- 1380-2038 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-2294
- OpenAlex
- W3024724020
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archaeological Dialogues (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Race, Genetics, and Society
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
- Keywords
- imagination, archaeology of the future, future archaeology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review