MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178354131 · doi:10.1017/9781108773522.017

Bandung and Third-World Liberation

2021· book-chapter· en· W3178354131 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Russell Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Studies and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWrightColonialismIndonesianDecolonizationSolidarityIndependence (probability theory)Gender studiesHistorySociologyPolitical scienceArt historyLawPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the founding events within narratives of Afro-Asian, South-South, and Third-World solidarity has been the 1955 Asian-African Conference held in the Indonesian city of Bandung. And one of the foundational accounts of the Asian-African Conference has been Richard Wright’s 1956 book The Color Curtain: A Report on the Bandung Conference , which Wright wrote based on a three-week sojourn in Indonesia. Drawing on alternative accounts and perspectives regarding the Bandung Conference and Wright’s concomitant interactions with Indonesian interlocutors, this essay examines Wright’s perspectives on colonialism and decolonization as well as his stance on questions of racial and colonial shame and the powers of postcolonial leaders such as Indonesia’s President Sukarno and the Gold Coast’s Kwame Nkrumah. These contexts—taken together with a historically relevant short story written by one of Wright’s main Indonesian interlocutors—illuminate the subject of Wright’s, and Bandung’s, relation to Third-World liberation in colonialism’s enduring wake.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicAsian Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207