Colonial Genocide in Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Perspective / Génocide colonial dans une perspective interculturelle et interdisciplinaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars from diverse cultural and disciplinary backgrounds have made recent contributions to debates about colonial genocide, conceptualizing this issue in widely divergent ways. Yet, most research syntheses regarding colonial genocide are over a decade old and therefore exclude influential research such as prominent government reports. This synthesis focuses on two themes: forms of genocide, and accountability mechanisms. Adopting a transnational approach, it incorporates three case studies – Canada, Namibia, and Rwanda – each differing in terms of its temporal relationships with colonial governments, forms of genocide, and accountability mechanisms. This project compares debates about multiple forms of genocide in the case studies. Regarding Canada, research analyzes direct killings and sexual violence, starvation and displacement, cultural, institutional, and legal violence. Regarding Namibia, research analyzes the use of concentration camps and ‘scorched earth’ tactics plus a longer history of cultural genocide. Regarding Rwanda, research analyzes direct killings and sexual violence. By comparing debates about forms of genocide in each case study – particularly by looking beyond direct killings alone – this project analyzes how diverse scholars have engaged with multiple kinds of violence. This project also compares debates about different approaches to accountability. For example, the TRC process in Canada and the Justice and Reconciliation process in Rwanda have taken different approaches to courts and trials. In Namibia, the pursuit by Indigenous peoples of the creation of accountability mechanisms remains stalled in discussions involving the German and Namibian governments. Comparing research into these mechanisms offers bases for considering different approaches to accountability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".