Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract I reconstruct the framework for a new critical practice formulated as a repudiation/refutation of not just the “authority of dogmatism” but also the normativity in Eurocentric thought. I delink the critical practice from its anticipatory progression into the inevitable reification of Eurocentric normative considerations. Thus, an antinormative and logical critique of self-determination are developed that refute the presupposed meaning of normative colonial discourse from which self-determination is conceptualized as its antithesis. This chapter challenges the meaning and conceptual occupations of colonialism by critiquing the hegemonic formulation of the concept that forecloses accounts of colonialism’s persistent postcolonial political iterations. For instance, I engage the logical and legal presupposition upon which Chapter XI, Resolutions 1541 and 1514 of the UN Charter on decolonization established self-governance as coterminous to decolonization. The fallacious and legally duplicitous argument reduced the complex colonial form to settler colonialism when, in fact, settler colonial arrangements were only specific to places like the US, Canada, South Africa, and Australia. At the same time, Resolutions 2625 and 2105 occluded these classic cases of settler colonialism from their consideration/thinking of how self-governance should be enforced, as the question of sovereignty in the context of settler colonialism could only have been resolved through the removal of colonial settlers in these countries. And yet self-governance, which does not apply to the kind of colonialism in Ghana/Africa (more broadly), was framed as central to African liberation in places where colonialism was designed to outlive physical European presence/territorial aggrandizement.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".