Archive for Mathematical Anthropology and Cultural Theory
Parent: Human Complex Systems
eScholarship stats: Breakdown by Item for May through August, 2026
| Item | Title | Total requests | Download | View-only | %Dnld |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7d69w4sk | Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship | 746 | 181 | 565 | 24.3% |
| 6xm8s89k | KINSHIP, MARRIAGE AND AGE IN ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA | 367 | 50 | 317 | 13.6% |
| 5m51s6k6 | FAMILIAL GENERATIONS TUTORIAL | 348 | 246 | 102 | 70.7% |
| 11w3x4qw | Aboriginal Men Coming of Age in Central Australia | 311 | 153 | 158 | 49.2% |
| 5cp5z12s | Tongan Kinship Terminology: Insights from an Algebraic Analysis | 258 | 65 | 193 | 25.2% |
| 3g59f8zc | FORMAL ANALYSIS OF KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT CONSTITUTES KINSHIP (COMPLETE TEXT) | 245 | 29 | 216 | 11.8% |
| 4j39f77c | TOWARD A THEORY OF CULTURE AND ADAPTIVE POTENTIAL | 245 | 23 | 222 | 9.4% |
| 7c16s5qd | THE GENERATIVE LOGIC OF CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES: THE THONGA-RONGA KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY AS A CASE STUDY | 202 | 86 | 116 | 42.6% |
| 1hs7w49v | Anthropology, Mathematics, Kinship: A Tribute to the Anthropologist Per Hage and His Work with the Mathematician Frank Harary | 190 | 63 | 127 | 33.2% |
| 640994nk | ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTING | 184 | 78 | 106 | 42.4% |
| 824791d1 | Comment on Denham's 'Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship' | 179 | 52 | 127 | 29.1% |
| 6tt297m0 | ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE / MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH USING THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL ALYAWARRA KINSHIP DATASET: PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 2004-2020 | 172 | 60 | 112 | 34.9% |
| 7p343150 | SOCIALITY IN E. O. WILSON’S GENESIS: EXPANDING THE PAST, IMAGINING THE FUTURE | 164 | 58 | 106 | 35.4% |
| 0h71p0c4 | Evidence for Systemic Outbreeding: A Rejoinder to Denham, 'Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship' | 152 | 65 | 87 | 42.8% |
| 7dc0m5jj | THE GENERATIVE LOGIC OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGE TERMINOLOGIES | 141 | 52 | 89 | 36.9% |
| 3xs3c8zg | EGOCENTRIC AND SOCIOCENTRIC STRUCTURE IN CLASSIFICATORY KINSHIP SYSTEMS: FOUR THEOREMS | 140 | 49 | 91 | 35.0% |
| 7963216r | RELATIVES, MOLECULES AND PARTICLES | 139 | 66 | 73 | 47.5% |
| 67g000jk | Residential Group Composition Among the Alyawarra | 123 | 36 | 87 | 29.3% |
| 32q9153k | HAMBERGER’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES” | 122 | 47 | 75 | 38.5% |
| 7gx8n6v9 | READ’S REPLY TO COMMENTS ONTHE GENERATIVE LOGIC OF CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES: THE THONGA-RONGA KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY AS A CASE STUDY | 120 | 53 | 67 | 44.2% |
| 3h24m1wt | ALLOMATERNAL CARE AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NATURALISTIC OBSERVATIONS AMONG CONTEMPORARY FORAGERS: A COMMENTARY ON DENHAM’S “ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTING” | 116 | 37 | 79 | 31.9% |
| 328293gn | TRAUTMANN AND WHITELEY’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES” | 114 | 30 | 84 | 26.3% |
| 9x78t1wm | COMMENT ON VAZ’ RELATIVES, MOLECULES AND PARTICLES | 108 | 33 | 75 | 30.6% |
| 2777f1xg | ALMEIDA’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES” | 106 | 46 | 60 | 43.4% |
| 66h059r2 | PATRICK MCCONVELL’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES” | 106 | 35 | 71 | 33.0% |
| 9cs6m00w | A COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO THE COGNITION OF SPACE AND ITS LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS | 104 | 34 | 70 | 32.7% |
| 3wx134vt | THE PHYSICAL FARM BUDGET: AN INDIGENOUS OPTIMIZING MANAGERIAL ALGORITHM | 103 | 18 | 85 | 17.5% |
| 8qp9g5vh | Reflections on the Algebraic Representation of Kinship Structure | 102 | 29 | 73 | 28.4% |
| 05c6f2p5 | Perceiving Ethnic Differences: Consensus Analysis and Personhood in Welsh-American Populations | 100 | 30 | 70 | 30.0% |
| 1h142307 | HEADY’S COMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES” | 100 | 27 | 73 | 27.0% |
| 2hr071tr | NOTES TOWARD A MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF CULTURE | 99 | 39 | 60 | 39.4% |
| 394512jm | COMMENT ON BARBOSA DE ALMEIDA “ON THE STRUCTURE OF DRAVIDIAN RELATIONSHIP SYSTEMS” | 96 | 26 | 70 | 27.1% |
| 3r25h05m | RESPONSE TO MACT COMMENTS ON DENHAM’S “ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTING” | 95 | 29 | 66 | 30.5% |
| 1b83m65d | COMMENT ON: DENHAM, “ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTING” | 93 | 31 | 62 | 33.3% |
| 67x4t8ts | Collective Violence in Darfur: An Agent-based Model of Pastoral Nomad/Sedentary Peasant Interaction | 87 | 42 | 45 | 48.3% |
| 9t64g4cm | ON THE STRUCTURE OF DRAVIDIAN RELATIONSHIP SYSTEMS | 87 | 29 | 58 | 33.3% |
| 4w18c8zt | TJON SIE FAT’sCOMMENT ON D. READ “GENERATIVE CROW-OMAHA TERMINOLOGIES” | 84 | 32 | 52 | 38.1% |
| 7gb031cf | THE INFLUENCE OF ADAPTIVE POTENTIAL ON PROXIMATE MECHANISMS OF NATURAL SELECTION | 83 | 12 | 71 | 14.5% |
| 09k717j6 | THE READ-LEHMAN LETTERS ON KINSHIP MATHEMATICS | 80 | 20 | 60 | 25.0% |
| 4m43v3x6 | Response to Read's Comment on "Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship" | 77 | 36 | 41 | 46.8% |
| 6kh181t1 | Experimenting with 'Lad Culture': A Simulation Based on Willis' "Learning to Labor" | 75 | 20 | 55 | 26.7% |
| 24q537d6 | Comment on Denham's 'Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Kinship' | 73 | 33 | 40 | 45.2% |
| 6wn81882 | COMMENT ON: DENHAM, “ALYAWARRA KINSHIP, INFANT CARRYING, AND ALLOPARENTING” | 71 | 29 | 42 | 40.8% |
| 2jb160n3 | Comment on Denham's 'Beyond Fictions of Closure of Australian Aboriginal Kinship' | 69 | 26 | 43 | 37.7% |
| 9s12d4c8 | INFORMATION FLOWS IN KINSHIP NETWORKS | 66 | 10 | 56 | 15.2% |
| 66m2b6sf | PRESCRIPTIVE KINSHIP SYSTEMS, PERMUTATIONS, GROUPS AND GRAPHS | 64 | 20 | 44 | 31.3% |
| 8965p47c | Comment on Denham's 'Beyond Fictions of Closure in Australian Aboriginal Kinship' | 63 | 22 | 41 | 34.9% |
| 89j302k1 | COMMENT ON VAZ’ RELATIVES, MOLECULES AND PARTICLES | 62 | 22 | 40 | 35.5% |
| 1pb503dj | <strong>COMMENTS on W. Denham’s “Alyawarra kinship, infant carrying, and alloparenting”</strong> <strong>and the review of it by Herlosky <em>et al</em>.,</strong> <strong>“Allomaternal care and the significance of naturalistic observations among contemporary foragers”</strong> | 60 | 21 | 39 | 35.0% |
| 8cp3p35j | COMMENT ON VAZ’ RELATIVES, MOLECULES AND PARTICLES | 60 | 22 | 38 | 36.7% |
Note: Due to the evolving nature of web traffic, the data presented here should be considered approximate and subject to revision. Learn more.