Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the production of knowledge in the context of socially excluded people exposed to inequality, oppression, and exploitation is problematized. The analysis follows Enrique Dussel's philosophical exegesis of the politics of power and corruption and his vision of a critical transformation of the social political order. The argument is also informed by the work of critical educator Paulo Freire, who elucidates the conditions of oppression and marginalization and highlights the importance of conscientization to develop a critical awareness of these conditions. Hannah Arendt's work on the politics of understanding totalitarianism also assists in the elucidation of the machinery that operates behind oppression to sustain power and inequality. The article emphasizes the need to recognize the inequality of conditions that exists between the producer of knowledge and those who live through inequality and oppression in their lived corporality. A critical transformation of the process of production of knowledge is needed to both acknowledge the conditions that sustain this endeavour in the first place and avoid the corruption of knowledge. A work of conscientization is also necessary among knowledge producers to undertake a critical analysis of inequality that exposes the corruption of power. This analysis needs to examine and unmask the hidden mechanisms that perpetuate inequality and oppression and serve only the interests of a few. The abysmal gaps between the wealthy and the poor within and among countries bespeak a degree of human indifference that reflects a most serious and complex phenomenon that perverts something profoundly human in our societies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".