MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414827920 · doi:10.29173/psur417

Frantz Fanon’s Critique of Colonial Structures: The Importance of Psychological Liberation

2025· article· en· W4414827920 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Martina Maslovski

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecolonizationColonialismIdeologyIdentity (music)Transformative learningPoliticsRacismWhite (mutation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores Frantz Fanon’s critique of assimilation and its implications within political theory, particularly regarding colonial identity and liberation. Fanon argues that assimilation reinforces colonial domination by influencing the colonized to internalize the white gaze, leading to psychological subjugation and self-alienation. In contrast to W.E.B. Du Bois’ theory of double consciousness, which suggests the possibility of integration without the loss of cultural identity, Fanon asserts that true liberation is unattainable within colonial frameworks. His works, Black Skin, White Masks and The Wretched of the Earth, provide a foundation for understanding decolonization as an active and transformative process that necessitates a complete rejection of colonial validation. This article examines Fanon’s argument, emphasizing his view of psychological liberation as an essential aspect in obtaining self-determination. It also highlights the broader ideological implications of his theory, demonstrating how decolonization extends beyond structural change to include a radical reimagining of identity and power. This analysis highlights the necessity of radical decolonization as a means of dismantling oppressive systems and reclaiming agency.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.408 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical Science Undergraduate ReviewSame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207