Cultural Perceptions of Africans in Diaspora and in Africa on Atlantic Slave Trade and Reparations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the cultural perceptions of Africans in Diaspora on the Atlantic slave trade and reparations. It uses a cultural centered model to analyze the perception of Africans in Diaspora about the issue of slavery and reparations. The paper also uses a survey method to explore the perceptions of African-Americans in the United States, Africans living in Europe, and Africans living in the African continent about reparations. It argues that the environmental, religious, occupational, social and political conditions that Africans in Diaspora currently live in will determine their perception of slavery and reparations. Despite this argument, the paper stresses that it is a violation of the established precedence in law that is based on the principle of unjust enrichment to not pay some reparations to the present generation of Africans. This principle stipulates that if a person, a corporation or a country profit from the criminal treatment of a group of people, such a person, corporation or country is subject to the payment of reparations on the basis of unjust enrichment. The study further attempts to explain why it has been difficult for the western industrial world to agree to pay reparations to the children of over 25,000,000 Africans who were wrenched out of Africa as slaves. The concluding section of the paper suggests different reparation methods that would help create a permanent solution that might be acceptable to all.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".