amanthro-literature-positioning — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited amanthro-literature-positioning (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
At AA, positioning is not throat-clearing — it is how a four-field readership sees the gap and the move. The goal is to place the paper in a live anthropological conversation that a reader outside your subfield can recognize, while practicing the citational politics AA explicitly values (lifting marginalized voices and knowledges, not only the usual canon).
paper speaks to; cite the works that constitute it, including across subfields where relevant.
an archaeologist should follow a linguistic paper's stakes and vice versa. Spell out subfield jargon.
scholars, theorists, and interlocutors from the regions and communities studied — not only metropolitan authorities. A bibliography of only Euro-American theorists is a positioning weakness.
contested, or assumed, and why resolving it advances anthropology.
fails / is provincial / is better understood as C′."
evidence adjudicates it (hand off to amanthro-research-design).
| If your paper is… | also engage… |
|---|---|
| a sociocultural ethnography of an institution | the broader theory of the phenomenon (exchange, kinship, the state) it illuminates |
| an archaeological reconstruction | the social-theory or comparative literature the material evidence speaks to |
| a biological/human-variation study | the cultural/social literature on how that variation acquires meaning |
| a linguistic-anthropology analysis | the social-theory or cultural literature the language practice indexes |
| reflexive / methodological | the substantive literatures the argument bears on, where applicable |
amanthro-submission)【Conversation】the live debate / open question
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-subfield + non-metropolitan)
【Gap】what is undertheorized / mis-described / contested
【Move】how this paper changes the conversation
【Citational politics】are marginalized/regional voices represented? [Y/N]
【Strongest rival reading】and how the evidence will adjudicate it
【Next】amanthro-theory-buildingBecause AA is the four-field flagship, "the relevant literature" is rarely just your home subfield's. The desk screen asks whether a non-specialist editor can see the conversation; this table sets the depth that usually clears it.
| Paper type | Literature it must engage | The trap to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Sociocultural ethnography | the general theory (power, exchange, care, the state) the case speaks to | a site literature with no portable claim |
| Archaeological study | the social/comparative theory the material record bears on | chronology/typology with no anthropological payoff |
| Biological anthropology | the cultural literature on meaning, race, or embodiment | biology framed as acultural fact |
| Linguistic anthropology | the social theory the language practice indexes | a grammar/discourse analysis detached from culture |
| World/Public anthropology | the metropolitan literature it provincializes or repairs | engagement that re-centers the canon it critiques |
A hypothetical sociocultural paper on debt among urban traders cites 24 works, 21 of them on one national economy. An AA-calibrated reframe keeps the core cites but adds the anthropology of exchange and obligation that comparativists own, the linguistic work on how debt talk is moralized, and 3 scholars writing from the region itself — re-stating the gap as a general claim ("debt is theorized as economic constraint; this case shows it is a moral idiom of belonging"). The bibliography barely grows, but the contribution now reads as four-field. (Counts illustrative.)
subfield's frontier is structurally weak even when the within-subfield contribution is real.
journal's current submission guidelines before relying on them.
../../resources/official-source-map.md — AA scope, sections, citational-practice guidance../../resources/exemplars/library.md — verified AA papers by subfield × method~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.