Monocultural Authority and Imperialist Extraction in the Primary-Secondary Source Division
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines one way that colonial logic is embedded in western academic practices. It argues that the conventional dichotomy between primary and secondary sources in the humanities and social sciences reflects western monocultural hegemony in its application to non-western knowledges. In these fields, primary sources are treated as objects, analysed as evidence, and used as data, while secondary sources get to act as subjects and are engaged with as experts. This paper identifies a problematic dynamic where Indigenous authorities whose expertise does not align with western academic norms are categorised and used as primary sources, thereby stripping them of their agency and subjectivity. Their knowledge is extracted, commodified, and appropriated for the benefit of the west. Further, the paper critiques the role of librarians and archivists in perpetuating this colonial logic through their instruction practices and professional frameworks and standards, especially around primary source literacy and evaluating authority. These practices promulgate monocultural tools through which knowledge is extracted and evaluated. This paper calls on librarians to critically assess their role in maintaining colonial structures that continue to marginalise Indigenous Knowledge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it