MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reparations for the Slave Trade: Rhetoric, Law, History and Political Realities

2007· article· en· W1574369001 on OpenAlex
Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResentmentRhetoricPoliticsCounterfactual thinkingPolitical rhetoricPolitical scienceLawPolitical economySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses several problematic aspects of the call for reparations to Africa for the slave trade. The call for reparations is based on questionable interpretations of international law, and questionable interpretations of history. There are debates regarding both the numbers of slaves, and the characteristics of slavery, in the Americas, the Arab world, and Africa itself, which influence consideration of whether reparations are justified. There are also debates regarding both the contribution of the trans-Atlantic slave trade to Western development, and how the trade under-developed Africa. Thus, the call for reparations is heavily based on a counterfactual approach. Nevertheless, serious discussion of whether the West owes reparations to Africa for the slave trade might deflect the future consequences of political resentment of the West in Africa.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.174 · 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