Bibliographic record
Abstract
With regard to new democracies in developing societies, the majority of citizens is less interested in the right to freedom of speech or to assembly and more concerned with having sufficient food to eat, a roof over their heads, education and accessible health care for their children. The study aims or is triggered by a recent visit to South Africa by the president of Botswana, Lt. Gen. Seretse Khama Ian Khama. In a keynote address at the Drivers of Change and Investing in the Future Awards in Johannesburg, Mr Khama urged states or leaders and the courts to tolerate or rather accommodate the need of the poor and the most vulnerable. If a (new) constitution is to have credibility and command the respect of the people subject to its provisions, it must take account of these demands and reflect them. In this way, for example, the right to health care and shelter has been recognized. This study asserts that a claim of lack of financial resources by the state is not an excuse for a failure to provide adequate services such as in the cases of Hoffman v South African Airways, Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom and Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal. Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further. This situation (lack of financial resources) warrants a reflection on the right to equality and human dignity. If equality is denied to people who have no food, clothing, shelter or access to health services, it follows of necessity that equality cannot be achieved unless all people have adequate food, clothing, shelter and access to health services. People who are denied access to the basic social and economic rights are denied the opportunity to live their lives with a semblance of human dignity.
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 | 0.035 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.152 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".