Problems, Perspectives, and Paradigms: Colonial Africanist Historiography and the Question of Audience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se penche sur les tendances manifestes dans l’écriture de l’histoire de l’Afrique coloniale. On peut diviser en deux groupes importants les plus récentes approches à l’Afrique coloniale, tout en ne perdant pas de vue qu’il existe des recoupements. Certains intellectuels mettent l’accent sur les tensions et les ambiguïtés du colonialisme en Afrique, alors que d’autres soulignent davantage l’état colonial et le paradigme traditionnel colons / colonisés. Ces quinze dernières années, le premier groupe, que l’on nomme “la Nouvelle historiographie” a pris de l’avance sur l’autre groupe dans l’étude de l’Histoire coloniale africaine. Il est intéressant de constater que certains de ces travaux se préoccupent davantage d’écrire pour des intellectuels occidentaux que pour les peuples même qui font l’objet de leur étude. Dans un sens, l’Afrique est devenue un objet de connaissance divorcé de ses propres populations, et cela dans l’intérêt des intellectuels qui n’habitent pas l’Afrique.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".