Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that some societies of the human race have been granted reparation, payment of reparation to people of African descent (hereafter referred to as Africans or Diaspora) may be considered long overdue. Descendants of African slaves in the United States have raised their voices about reparation they are legally entitled to but have been denied for more than a century.' Under the guidance of Dr. Robert Block, African Americans have gone further to demand exemption from U.S. taxes and racial discriminatory laws.2 The cry for reparation for continental Africans has been going on secretly among concerned members of the Diaspora for decades, but in recent years, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and concerned heads of states of Africa have raised their voices openly. In December 1990, an international conference on reparations in Nigeria succeeded in setting up an International Committee for Reparation (ICR). The ICR convinced the OAU to regard the reparation issue as one of the most important items on its agenda. In February 1991, at a tripartite summit of the heads of state of Togo, Senegal, and Nigeria in Lome, the subject of reparation was discussed alongside the concern for the continent's $250 billion debt at that time. The three leaders jointly recommended that the debt should be written off as part of the reparations due for 500 years of slavery of Africans in Western Europe and America (Ecowas Defence Commission, 1991, p. 197). In 1993, that rec-
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
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".