Introduction: Colonial Humanities and Criticality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting from the premise that the humanities are still in urgent need of being decolonized and deprovincialized, this forum, titled “The Rise and Decline of ‘Colonial Humanities,’” offers insights into the development of the humanities disciplines in what are often referred to as “area studies” (a field itself subject to criticism) since the beginning of the nineteenth century. The forum’s perspective on “colonial humanities” acknowledges the violence perpetuated in the name of Euro-American humanities and calls for an in-depth and sustained investigation into the construction of racism and prejudice across our fields. Case studies focus on the “local” development of philology in Turkey (Leezenberg), on critical “coauthorship” with local scholars in literary and historical studies (Berber/Amazigh studies) in Algeria (Merolla), and on the need for increased criticality and self-awareness in the fast-changing field of lexicography (Sear and Turin). The forum is rounded out with a commentary and reflection by Shamil Jeppie.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".