MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405191543 · doi:10.1080/09614524.2024.2438193

Did you notice? The Global South has just shifted the power

2024· article· en· W4405191543 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment in Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of OttawaGlobal Affairs Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticePower (physics)Development economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by Táíwò's call to investigate the “omissions and blind spots” (2022: 5) of the decolonization movement, we posit that important threads of both the decolonization and “shift-the-power” movements share (neo-)colonial assumptions. They overestimate the importance of “development industry” of bilateral donors, multilateral lenders and international NGOs for everyday life and public policy in most of the Global South. The middle-income countries where most of the global population live have been decolonising their world for decades, building viable polities, societies and economies that are neither modelled after nor dependent on the West. Yet an important thread of the decolonization literature continues to equate decolonizing the development industry with decolonizing development. This, we contend, is a sideshow. The main challenge for decolonization and shifting-the-power must be to decolonize those elements in the Global South adhering to old colonial practices.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.308 · 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