MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553384980

Decolonial options and artistic/aestheSic entanglements: An interview with Walter Mignolo

2014· article· en· W1553384980 on OpenAlexaff
Rubén Gaztambide‐Fernández

Bibliographic record

VenueDecolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCultural and Social Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecolonialityIndigenousDecolonizationColonialismSociologyAestheticsPower (physics)Postcolonialism (international relations)PoliticsPolitical scienceGender studiesLawArtEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1990s Walter Mignolo has been a central figure in discussions and debates around the world about coloniality and the development of thinking within the frame of the “decolonial option.” Most recently, Mignolo has been deeply engaged in discussions with artists, curators, critics, theoreticians, and other cultural producers committed to the decolonial option with whom he has developed decolonial understandings of and approaches to “aestheTics” and “aestheSis.” In this interview with Decolonization editorial board member Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez, Mignolo discusses decolonial options and their entanglements within contemporary political and cultural processes, arguing that “decolonial thinkers and doers have to work in the entanglement and differential of power.” He elaborates on the range of options available to artists committed to decolonial work, as they navigate contemporary art worlds shaped by competing norms and based on diverging epistemologies and conceptions of creation and sensory experience. He talks about the role of Indigenous conceptions of and approaches to creative work, suggesting that Indigenous practices have a central role to play in how we come to deal with the colonial wound through decolonial healing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecolonization: Indigeneity, Education & SocietySame topicCultural and Social DynamicsFrench-language works237,207