Far beyond post‐colonialism: Guerreiro Ramos’ contribution to social theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE "TENDENCY" TO POST-COLONIALISMWhen academics think about 'post-colonial theory', they most likely point to the academic trend of postcolonial studies that flourished in the 80s with the publication of Said's Orientalism.It shows how there is no neutral intellectual activity, and that power hierarchies are always at work (Azim, 2001).Two decades later, post-colonialism has developed into an academic discipline, including debates on a variety of subjects.It highlights the pervasive power of the empire's legacies, and how our knowledge is not untouched by these colonial thoughts (Go, 2016).Despite this trend of thinking about post-colonial studies in the 80s with Said, Spivak and Bhabha, some authors have been pointing out that these figures are the second wave of post-colonialism, and that there was a first wave with the participation of Fanon, Césaire, Cabral and others (Go, 2016).The conceptualisation of post-colonialism, as well as which studies can be categorised under this category, is even more complex: when is the post-colonial?Who is the post-colonial?And what is post-colonial?(Childs & Williams, 1997).Social theorists tend to approach postcolonialism as 'little else than a trendy fad lacking substance.At best, in their view, postcolonial theory dangerously celebrates the cultural and particular at the expense of the material and universal' (Go, 2016: X).At the same time, authors that never claimed the status of post-colonial thinkers have been classified in this category.We ask: in which sense is it convenient for colonialism if we create and feed such classification?How colonialist is it to classify every south theorist as a post-colonialist?Who counts as a theorist?We aim to answer the first question above, analysing the processes by which some authors are being rediscovered and labelled as post-colonialists.And for that, we use the hypothesis that there is a convenient Northern tendency to label marginalised scholars as anti-racists, feminists and anti-colonials, instead of calling them social theorists.In this article, we bring Guerreiro Ramos
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".