Bibliographic record
Abstract
South African society bears a legacy of inequality and struggle against oppression. In the Constitutional era, our courts have held that the right to equality is a core fundamental value against which all law and state practice must be tested. South Africa’s Equality Courts have been heralded as a transformative mechanism for the redressing of systemic inequality and the promotion of the right to equality. Following the aftermath of the 2008 xenophobic attacks in South Africa, the University of Cape Town Refugee Law Clinic, on behalf of some of the victims of these attacks, launched equality claims against the South African Police Services in order to address the unfair discrimination and xenophobia of police officials in protecting these victims. This paper reviews the two matters launched by the Clinic in the Equality Courts, examining the challenges that effectively reduce the accessibility of the Equality Courts and the difficulty inherent in proving discrimination in equality claims, and commenting on the benefits of using these courts to address xenophobia.
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 | 0.029 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".