Oral History and Archives in the New South Africa: Methodological Issues
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
La flambe d'intrt pour l'histoire orale en Afrique du Sud soulve plusieurs questions d'ordre mthodologique pour les archivistes.Les approches existantes en histoire orale, qu'elles soient folkloriques, historiques ou plus centres sur la communaut et l'identit, abordent rarement la question de savoir si les histoires orales devaient tre traites comme des documents et, le cas chant, quelle serait la meilleure faon de les valuer.Cet article s'attache ces questions et conclut en plaidant pour davantage de souplesse et de crativit dans l'valuation des histoires orales.ABSTRACT The upsurge of interest in oral history in South Africa raises a series of methodological questions for archivists.Existing approaches to oral history, whether folkloric, historical, or more focussed on community and identity, have rarely asked whether oral histories should function as records and, if so, how they should be appraised.This essay explores these questions and concludes with a call for more flexible, creative approaches to appraising oral histories.Oral history in South Africa is experiencing an upsurge initiated by community and academic groups, 1 and embraced by the new government. 2This active commitment by the state to collect oral history is nearly unprecedented.In other post-war or post-trauma situations, it is usually victim groups or
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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