Sister Scholarship, Métissage, and Relational Ethics: The Decolonizing Power of Phenomenological Encounters With Art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This inquiry aims to demonstrate how dwelling in a phenomenological space during the experience of art by Black, Indigenous, and people of color artists can spark the process of recognizing the ways in which we have been programmed by colonial thought. In responding to five guiding questions as individuals in a process of phenomenological art inquiry, before we brought our thoughts together, we broached the kind of refractive analysis that Barad suggested in striving to understand the story the artists convey as well as each other’s responses to the works of art. In the spirit of sister scholarship, together we came to a place of being one step closer to understanding the impact of colonial logics in our learning and teaching, and what is required to work in ethically relational and decolonizing ways. We offer this article as an example of one means of decolonizing our practice as artists, researchers, and educators.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.131 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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".