Who makes whom visible? Excavating eco-visual cultures in DR Congo and its diasporas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using Congolese artistic modalities as a tool for excavation, this article reflects on narratives around violence, memory, the environment(s) and identity in the Democratic Republic of Congo and its diasporas. I disrupt visibility using what I term the “technologies of race-making,” to simultaneously explain: (1) the functions of a peripheral visuality that flattens and erases our land relations and coerced participation in extractive global colonial and imperialist technological “advancements”; (2) how Congo is (then) reproduced as a volcanic environment; and (3) the erasures of the multi-sense and interior violence of ecocide and genocide experienced in Congo and its diasporas, particularly for, disabled and/or trans/gender expansive and queer peoples. Employing a Congolese and Black African diasporic transfeminist and queer ecological disability justice approach, I contend that marginalized Congolese and Congolese diasporic perspectives are uniquely positioned to understand the interconnected convergence of human-land-animal-plant catastrophes and possibilities within and outside of Congo.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".