MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transactions and Informality

2015· article· fr· W1898795091 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel M. Petrocelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers d études africaines · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsBibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismContext (archaeology)Capital (architecture)PopulationEconomyPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyHistoryLawEconomicsAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines certain everyday strategies in which Dakarois engaged as they negotiated the challenging economic terrain of the colonial capital from the late 1910s to the mid-1940s. Civil court cases provide a unique view into the types of questions urban dwellers confronted and the solutions they devised in transacting with one another within the context of official policies that sought to keep resources among most of the population at a vital minimum. Analysis of those cases and other evidence from that era reveals that Dakarois’ greatest resources were each other: neighbours, family members, and people of common origin provided opportunities in concrete and credit form. Practices such as pawning objects and lodging funds with individuals became ways people crafted financial strategy without fully interfacing with colonial structures. This article therefore argues that the types of transactions that became important to Dakar’s urban setting in the first half of the twentieth century illustrate the roots of the informal economy that later became deeply associated with African cities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.024
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers d études africainesSame topicAfrican history and culture studiesFrench-language works237,207