Narratives About the Future, the End of Times, and the Colonization of the Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to argue about the colonization of the future and its narratives. Historically, the future has been determined by a linear Jewish-Christian timeline with a beginning, and an end. Beyond Apocalypse (Armageddon), and Utopia (the dream of Paradise on Earth), the turn of the millennium (the year 2.000) introduced new narratives to these. Technology, the bug of the millennium, and data science become predominant aspects to which the future relates to. This paper argues that the colonization of the future is the act of producing a future in which dominance is still in the power of some, and not available to all. Unless equality and equal distribution of forces win the battle, humanity will continue being a prisoner of the organizations that control and discourse about the future. The colonization of the future, likewise the Church and its final days, or Utopia’s discoveries of Lost Paradise, is being set to determine the future using technology and predictability. It is concluded that the turn of the millennium posts a new time to society, but again, it does not seem that all individuals have been invited. The colonization of the future is a key concept to discuss the forces that are creating the future, and it highlights the necessity to decolonize it.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".