Anti-colonial Lawyering, Postwar Human Rights, and Decolonization across Imperial Boundaries in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focusing on the relationship between African political actors and their lawyers enables us to see the history of Africa's decolonization as an assemblage of legal processes through which a belief in universal democratic law — meaning law accessible to and in the service of everyone, including colonial subjects — nourished an awareness of the power of universally equal rights — meaning rights for all regardless of citizenship, economic or social status, degree of education, and religious, racial or cultural identity. In viewing the law as transformative with a potential to decolonize the structures of colonialism, Africans claimed their legal, political, and civil rights in the early years of decolonization. The alliance they formed with anti-colonialist lawyers forged the practice of claiming both individual rights and the collective right of the imperially governed to determine their political futures as equals. It was a practice that required a revolutionary transformation from the legally plural systems assigning variegated rights to the citizens and subjects of empires into political systems imagined to grant universal access to a more democratic law.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".