MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210476146 · doi:10.33137/cq.v6i1.36901

Reality of Reparations: An Exploration of Neo-Colonialism, Morality and Control in the Caribbean

2022· article· en· W4210476146 on OpenAlex
Amna Khan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCaribbean Quilt · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCaribbean history, culture, and politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismWrongdoingMoralityPoliticsPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Political economyPower (physics)SociologyLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reparations are widely understood as the process by which compensation is given or amends made for previous wrongdoing. In the context of the Caribbean, it may refer to official actions taken by former colonial powers to acknowledge and recompense states affected by colonialism and slavery. This paper seeks to analyse discussions of reparations in the region and consider how the lack of com- pensation may be perceived as demonstrating that modern power relations are merely repackaged propagations of imperialism. Fundamentally, this paper argues that the notion that colonisation was left behind in the 19th century with the abolition of slavery or mid-20th Century with the political indepen- dence of Caribbean nation-states is a facade and uses reparations discourse as the foremost example of such. This is demonstrated through the following questions: Why do reparations need to be paid? Why are they not being paid? And What needs to change?

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.266 · 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