MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400957040 · doi:10.1080/00083968.2024.2360582

The postcolonial world as a cargo globe: ideas of inequality in early Ghanaian fiction, 1968–1977

2024· article· en· W4400957040 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mélanie Lindbjerg Guichon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDanmarks Frie Forskningsfond
KeywordsAnachronismGlobeRhetoricInequalityColonialismEmancipationSociologyKwameIndependence (probability theory)HistoryLiteraturePolitical scienceArtAnthropologyLawPhilosophyPoliticsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reconstructing the thinking on inequality of Ghanaian writers-cum-intellectuals Ama Ata Aidoo and Ayi Kwei Armah, this article contributes to the burgeoning research on inequality in literature and to global and African intellectual history. While both authors have mainly been studied by literary scholars, little work has been done to focus explicitly on their ideas about global inequality. This article investigates how ideas of inequality and concepts of an unequal world figure in the writers’ early fictional works and unfolds how these authors were influenced by their trajectories within transatlantic intellectual networks, including key inequality thinkers such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Kwame Nkrumah and Walter Rodney. In their early novels, both writers reactivated the enslaved figure to counter the widespread rhetoric of emancipation of the early independence period, articulating neo-colonial critiques based on an anachronistic use of slavery-related metaphors and conceptions of the postcolonial world as a “cargo globe.”

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.019
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africainesSame topicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issuesFrench-language works237,207