Recentering the Philosophical Foundations of Knowledge: The Case of Africa With a Special Focus on the Global Role of Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The historical and actual marginalizations of African thought systems and knowledge constructions have been expansively responsible for the effectiveness of the dominant educational and governance systems imposed on Africa. The idea as well as the practice of these realities would conform to what Said (1993), Fanon (1967, 1968), and Memmi (1991) have called the cultural and psychosocial colonizations of both the physical and mental spaces of the conquered. The reality also speaks about the role of Europe’s most important thinkers such as Kant, Hobbes, and Voltaire, who all directly or indirectly paved the way for the projects of “de-philosophization” and “de-epistemologization” that still affect people’s lives. With the emergence of new cosmopolitanisms now creating highly multicultured societies in especially the so-called liberal democracies of the West, new contexts have also emerged of what one might counterintuitively call the “multiculturalization of knowledge marginalizations.” Thus there is an urgent need to aim for knowledge and learning multicentricities that both theoretically and pragmatically rewrite the learning trajectories of both the old colonized space and the new, still alienating multicultural classrooms. This article engages the historical and actual problematizations of the case and suggests some ideas for better possibilities that could enhance the schooling lives of current globally located learners.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".