Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to remind readers how distressing decolonization is. Decolonization brings with it the repatriation of Indigenous life and land. It is not a metaphor of other things we want to do to advance our societies. An easy adoption of the decolonizing discourse –which is made evident in the increasing number of calls to «decolonizing our schools», using “decolonizing methods” or “decolonizing thinking”– turns decolonization into a metaphor. No matter how significant its goals, social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches, decentralizing the settler’s perspective has a set of goals that may be incommensurable with decolonization. Since settler colonialism is built upon a tangled triadic settler-native-slave structure, white, non-white, migrant, post-colonial, and oppressed people’s decolonial desires may get similarly entangled throughout resettlement, re-occupation, and reinsertion, which are indeed promoting settler’s colonialism. Turning decolonization into a metaphor allows for a series of evasions, or “settlers’ moves to innocence”, which problematically attempt to reconcile settler’s guilt and complicity, thus rescuing settler’s futurity. This article analyzes varied settlers’ moves to innocence in order to foster “an ethics of incommensurability”, acknowledging what is different and sovereign for decolonization projects as related to social justice projects based on human and citizen’s rights. Also, we point out some concerning issues in transnational/ Third World decolonization, abolition, and critical space-place pedagogies, challenging coalescing efforts for social justice, giving room to potential more significant alliances.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".