The indigenous redemption of liberal universalism
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the uptake of liberal universalism by indigenous thinkers in the settler societies of Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. It focuses on five thinkers—Peter Jones (Canada), Charles Eastman and Zitkala-Sa (U.S.), Apirana Ngata (New Zealand) and William Cooper (Australia)—who accepted the Christian faith and belief in the perfectability of human beings of their settler overlords. Here, we see the ideas of the colonizers taken up with little revision. Where there was little chance that the colonizers might go away, these figures took up the ideas of the colonisers and sought to show that they held implications for social life much different than the practices currently in existence. They took the principle of human perfectability seriously, by saying that it applied truly universally—to all human societies, their own and the colonizers’ alike. ‘What was important about liberal universalism’, Rowse concludes, ‘was that every branch of humanity, including those that colonized, must be measured against a civilized standard.’
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it