MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380667315 · doi:10.59817/cjes.v10i.84

What is Violence? On Hannah Arendt’s Critique of Frantz Fanon

2019· article· en· W4380667315 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Ishrat Ibne Ismail

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossings A Journal of English Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicNorth African History and Literature
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismHumanityInterpretation (philosophy)Context (archaeology)SociologyPerspective (graphical)Colonial ruleDehumanizationPsychoanalysisPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceHistoryAnthropologyArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth offers a strong intellectual framework established on the author’s medical and social experiences to overthrow colonial rule. Specifically, the text is Frantz Fanon’s interpretation of the mechanisms of colonialism and of revolution from the perspective of the Algerian struggle to get rid of French colonial rule. Out of the five chapters of the book, the first one, “On Violence,” where Fanon supports violence as a requisite weapon to bring down colonial rule towards national liberation and the reinstallation of humanity in the colonized world, is the one often “misunderstood and misrepresented” (Brydon). This paper, by presenting a critique of works such as Hannah Arendt’s views on violence, argues that Fanon’s concept of violence has to be engaged with and understood within the context in which Fanon has framed it, particularly the Algerian struggle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.042
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossings A Journal of English StudiesSame topicNorth African History and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207