A Home in Disorder is not a Home: Examining Race in Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among its neighbours, the island nation of Trinidad and Tobago stands out due to its ethnic makeup. The population of most Caribbean nations is mainly of African descent; similar to Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago is evenly divided between Afro-Trinidadians and Indo-Trinidadians. Unlike many of the other Caribbean colonies, Trinidad and Tobago were not extensive plantation economies until much later in the colonial period (Paton 291). This is one of the main reasons why the country presently hosts a proportionately lower Afro-Trinidadian population in comparison to other Caribbean countries. While other ethno-cultural groups reside in the country, the aforementioned groups have dominated the landscape in numbers since at least the early 20th century (United Nations Statistics Division). Afro-Trinidadians are generally descendants of enslaved Africans brought to the Caribbean to serve as plantation labourers; Indo-Trinidadians are generally the descendants of South Asian indentured labourers brought to Trinidad to fulfill the same role following the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies. Trinidad and Tobago's long history of colonial subjugation has bred a modern social hierarchy highly tied to race. Racial categories centered around physical characteristics and created during the colonial period have been instrumental in the development of this social hierarchy. Its institutionalization within the country’s modern national political system has resulted in persisting legacies evident throughout modern Trinidadian society. I focus on the island of Trinidad (while still making occasional reference to Tobago) and argue that Trinidadian national unity has been hampered by the foundations laid by the plantation system and consolidated by the modern political system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".