MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016508856 · doi:10.1080/03056240802193804

South Africa: Revisiting Capital's ‘Formative Action’

2008· article· en· W2016508856 on OpenAlex
Carolyn Bassett

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of African Political Economy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth African History and Culture
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersYork University
KeywordsRestructuringHegemonyFormative assessmentPoliticsPresidential systemPolitical scienceCapital (architecture)DemocracyPolitical economyCollective actionNeoliberalism (international relations)UnderpinningDevelopment economicsEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article revisits Saul and Gelb's 1981 analysis of South African capital's ‘formative action’, employing their framework to assess how capital hasshaped the economic framework since 1990. I show that once prominentbusiness leaders became committed to non‐racial democracy, the privatesector became enormously influential in shaping the economic programme.The policy changes permitted South African firms to restructure theiroperations largely on their own terms, becoming major investors elsewherein Africa and around the world. Despite their ostensible success, the neoliberal framework they cultivated may lack durability, simply because the ‘historical bloc’ underpinning it is so narrow that the programme has notoffered many benefits to the majority. Despite measures taken by thegovernment since 2000 to broaden the political coalition supporting the neoliberal restructuring, the recent crisis over presidential succession reflects the failure to vest the economic changes in a hegemonic programme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.250 · 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