Financial capital and ghosts of empire: editorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this special issue, we take up the metaphor of the ghost to identify the seemingly intangible yet undeniable persistence of racism, empire and colonialism in finance and the global capitalist economy. In the aftermath of a world system built through colonialism, imperialism and their race-making projects, we all emerge haunted by racial colonialism. Despite this differently-expressed but shared global condition, we also live in a world marked by a willed forgetfulness, occurring more broadly, and especially in fields like economics and political economy. We argue that in order to understand the cultural economy one must confront the ghostly aspects of it. This special issue contributes to the cultural economy of finance by demonstrating pivotal ways in which finance actually works. We do so by refracting the lens of contemporary financial activity to reveal hidden ghostly power relations connecting the past of empire and colonialism with the present of financialisation and coloniality.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".