An African Union-Caribbean Community alliance in the global reparations movement: promises, perils, and pitfalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to shared colonialist histories, current economic and political struggles, and challenges in charting inclusive futures, it is, in the opinion of the authors, essential for the people of the Caribbean and Africa to unite in their advocacy for reparations and justice. This article articulates what such an alliance might look like through a comprehensive analysis of documents between the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the African Union (AU) and by building upon Robin Kelley’s critical Nine Theses on Decolonisation and CARICOM’s current 10-Point Plan. In assessing the current state of collective reparatory movements, the authors have identified three gaps that require further research: the representation of the Indigenous Caribbean in theory but not in practice, the overarching emphasis on the state-to-state approach to reparations, and the lack of youth participation. Their proposed expansion of the Caribbean-Africa Knowledge Programme will, argue the authors, address these gaps and further the conversation on the importance and urgency of a trans-regional call for reparations by Caribbean and African citizens.
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 | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".