MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164331474 · doi:10.1111/amet.12106

Farming the South African “Bush”: Ecologies of belonging and exclusion in rooibos tea

2014· article· en· W2164331474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Ives

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Ethnologist · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousRace (biology)CommodityPopulationAgricultureEthnologyQuarter (Canadian coin)GeographyWhite (mutation)Value (mathematics)SociologyGender studiesEcologyArchaeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT As rooibos tea's economic value has risen, its status has gone from a wild plant to a culturally significant product against which some residents of the South African rooibos‐growing region measure their sense of belonging and indigeneity. I examine how “coloured” residents negotiated the region's fraught history of cultural indigeneity as well as its celebratory relation to ecological indigeneity. With the majority of land still in white South Africans’ hands and more than a quarter of the population without work, indigenous claims have taken on increasing importance as political rallying points and means of economic survival. Although “coloured” people, members of a South African racial category denied nativity to any place, could potentially benefit from claims of indigeneity, many rejected a temporally and spatially incarcerating idea of cultural indigeneity. Instead, they found economic possibilities in and metonymic identification with an indigenous plant. [race, indigeneity, South Africa, multispecies, agriculture, commodity]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican EthnologistSame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207