Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper interrogates the ontological and epistemological transformations of spatial paradigms within the framework of colonial hegemony, elucidating the commodification and annexation of lands as emblematic of deeper ontological fractures. Through a meticulous historiographical analysis, the study foregrounds the aggressive territorial acquisitions characteristic of colonial expansion, positing these not merely as physical dominations but as epistemicide— the erasure of indigenous and first nations spatial understandings wherein space is regarded as a living, spiritual entity, integral to all forms of life. By critically examining the socio-political fabric of colonial dispossession, particularly within the Canadian context, this research serves as a poignant critique of the eurocentric spatial paradigms that dominate modern scientific discourse on space, spatiality, and spacetime. It then extends this analysis to the cosmic realm, employing the ƛCDM model of cosmology as a metaphor for understanding the interconnectedness of the universe and the colonial imprint on our scientific and philosophical outlooks on space. Furthermore, the paper delves into the philosophical underpinnings of space, spatiality, and spacetime, tracing its evolution from ancient Greece to contemporary poststructuralist and postcolonial theories. It challenges the foundational assumptions of logic, math, and physics and encourages a decolonized approach to understanding reality, suggesting that such perspectives could unveil more nuanced insights into the cosmos. The analysis culminates in a call for a holistic reconceptualization of space, spatiality, and spacetime, advocating for a future where decolonization, inclusivity, and equity form the cornerstones of our engagement with spatial realities. It posits that embracing relationality and acknowledging the interconnectedness of all forms of existence can lead to a more just and sustainable spatial praxis, transcending historical legacies of domination and exclusion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".