Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine how temporary relocation areas (TRAs), urban forms that facilitate evictions and forced relocations, have been written into South African legal and governmental structures through contested urban planning and legal regimes. Design/methodology/approach – Proceeding from the macro-scale of TRAs spread across the nation, to the mezzo-scale of the Delft Symphony Way TRA in Cape Town, to the micro-scale of an individual “blikkie” (housing unit) within this camp, the article looks at the form and function of the TRA in urban resettlement practices. Special attention is given to relocation areas’ designation as “temporary” spaces and the consequences of this temporal designation in law and on the ground. Findings – These sites have developed as technologies for negotiating competing demands on the state, and their presence foregrounds some of the deeply rooted contradictions in post-apartheid South Africa. They are places both within and apart from the city, often managed by city officials according to municipal specifications, but located proximally to key urban amenities, utilities services and employment centers. They also place contradictory demands on their residents, for whom making the TRA liveable also legitimates it as a form of housing. Originality/value – This article uncovers several concerns about TRAs, including their inadequacy for long-term settlement, their problematic usage as tools of dispossession and the spatial-material-legal imbrications by which TRAs exist, persist and act back upon both individual lives and policy spheres.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".