The Jungelian Knowledge in the Garden of Europe: “The Other” and their representation in the European Studies Program at Malmö University
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
European Studies as a mainstream field needs evaluation of how its structured, and what ontological, epistemological, and methodological approaches it takes. Through a theoretical framework consolidated mainly by Spivak and Said with a post-colonial lens on the European Studies Program, where it uses positional superiority, Subject-Constitution and Object-Formation concepts, theorizing “The Other” using anthropological writings and psychoanalysis, and use destructive representation to investigate the positionality of “The Other” or its effective absence, this dissertation investigate and analyze four core courses of European Studies Program at Malmö University to address the knowledge about, and the representation of, “The Other” within the program’s curriculum. It concludes that because of its origin as a field of study and the dominant group that reproduces the knowledge about it, “The Other” is better measured through its effective absence, even if it has been always present. It further questions knowledge production about and from “The Jungle” and how a serious shift is possible; this shift does not start by recognizing the absence, but rather, as a first step, by the will to acknowledge it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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