MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955011556 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.13361

Embodying Resistance: Power as Internal Resistance in Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks

2019· article· en· W2955011556 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Trevell Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPosthumanist Ethics and Activism
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance (ecology)Embodied cognitionPoliticsPower (physics)White (mutation)AestheticsDominance (genetics)Social orderOrder (exchange)SociologyPsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commonplace definitions of resistance define it as specific form of political resistance; as a process in which individuals’ band together in hopes of resisting a particular structure and achieving a common goal – but Fanon differs in this regard. For Fanon, resistance must be a twofold project: before individuals deploy higher-order methods of resistance, such as social and political resistance, he urges us, by way of demonstration, to adopt methods of internal resistance. Therefore, a philosophy of resistance must not only manifest itself in social and political practices; it must also serve as an embodied philosophy that individuals adopt in their everyday lives. Thus, my intention here is to investigate notions of power and resistance within Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks. More specifically, I seek to show that in Black Skin, White Masks Fanon’s conceives of those bearing power as having the capacity to resist – a capacity that is derived from within. Power, then, can manifest itself as a form of self-motivated, embodied resistance towards systems and structures that impact an individual’s internal disposition – their beliefs, lenses, and psychological temperament. However, in order to develop an account of self-motivated, embodied resistance, we also need to develop the proper philosophical tools that can be used to draw the boundaries between power and dominance, to combat the possibility of false self-motivation, and to provide a working definition of self-motivation, embodiment, and resistance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.027
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicPosthumanist Ethics and ActivismFrench-language works237,207