Bibliographic record
Abstract
There used to be East and West, North and South, expressing the colonial divide; they were there for centuries, if under different names. The colonial relation, by definition, develops some areas by exploiting others; it is part of the dynamic that powers the establishment of North and South and their reciprocal co-constitution. But how does reflection on settler colonialism, as distinct from colonialism, contribute to these shifting taxonomies? In what now could be considered the disciplinary subfield of 'settler colonial studies', the location of settler-colonial phenomena within different taxonomies has been debated for decades. While both the recent and the less recent literatures dealing with settler colonialism have focused especially on the history and current circumstances of settler societies---primarily Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States---in this article I argue, firstly, that the geographical scope of this debate should be widened and understood globally. This goes against the common assumption that the settler-colonial phenomenon is no longer relevant in the current postcolonial globalized world. Secondly, this article suggests that settler-colonial forms fundamentally inform current circumstances and that we are facing a settler-colonial present as well as a colonial present. Declaring the end of settler colonialism has been a long-lasting feature of reflections on colonialism. By comparison, in a necessarily tentative way, and primarily as an agenda for further research, this article outlines how settler-colonial forms characterize contemporary metropolitan and colonial formations and their postcolonial successors. Overall then, it argues that settler colonialism is a globalizing and contemporary phenomenon.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".