MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156214380 · doi:10.1177/0967010615582125

Social sorting as ‘social transformation’: Credit scoring and the reproduction of populations as risks in South Africa

2015· article· en· W2156214380 on OpenAlexaff
Sachil Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueSecurity Dialogue · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)LegislationSociologyCapitalismPoliticsSocial transformationPolitical economyDemocracySocial reproductionSocial changeLaw and economicsPolitical scienceLawSocial scienceHistorySocial capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, I show that credit scoring, although not explicitly designed as a security device, enacts (in)security in South Africa. By paying attention to a brief history of state-implemented social categories, we see how the dawn of political democracy in 1994 marked an embrace of – not opposition to – their inheritance by the African National Congress. The argument is placed within a theoretical framework that dovetails David Lyon’s popularization of ‘social sorting’ with an extension of Harold Wolpe’s understanding of apartheid and capitalism. This bridging between Lyon and Wolpe is developed to advance the view that apartheid is a social condition whose historical social categories of rule have been reproduced since 1994 in the framing of credit legislation, policy and scoring. These categories are framed in the ‘new’ South Africa as indicators of ‘social transformation’. Through the lens of credit scoring, in particular, it is demonstrated that ‘social transformation’ not only influences, shapes and reproduces historical forms of social categories, but also serves the state’s attempt to create and maintain populations as risks.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSecurity DialogueSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207