Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of human knowledge and technology has positioned us to realize a new colonialism in outer space. Those with a concern for the future cannot afford to refuse outer space altogether, but must actively devise alternatives to the colonial or capitalistic, imagining a just and peaceful future for humanity beyond the Earth. In this paper, I present Afrofuturism, specifically a Black feminist Afrofuturism, as not merely an aesthetic, but a scholarly methodology capable of disrupting the supposedly inevitable and damned futures awaiting humanity in a colonized outer space. I propose three practices comprising a methodology of Black feminist Afrofuturism. Countermemory involves a willful act of refusing dominant colonial, patriarchal, or white supremacist myths, challenging their hegemony and excavating Black knowledge and experiences from beneath their desolate surface. Interdisciplinarity refuses the practice of knowledge generation in isolation and demands direct collaboration—knowledge created in community—to derive new insights and perspectives from the convergence of disparate practices of countermemory. The third practice, worldbuilding, is a speculative exercise undertaken through the deliberate action of imagining or engaging with new visions of the future through a Black feminist or similar critical lens. These imagined worlds of Black feminist Afrofuturism reveal themselves as the muse for the acts of creation which might influence the trajectory of humanity’s future in outer space, whether in the arts, academic research, public policy, or community organization.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.008 |
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".