Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the origins and development of state land trusts in South Africa, and considers the legal remedies to which the beneficiaries of such trusts may be entitled. The action taken by the Bafokeng is one of the few reported cases in which black communities have sought to challenge the disposal of their rights by the state. South African administrative law, even after the advent of the right to just administrative action in the 1996 Constitution, does not impose a clear fiduciary duty on the state to act in the interests of trust beneficiaries in this situation. By contrast, courts in the United States and Canada have developed a set of principles (which the article considers in some detail) to protect the beneficiaries of state land trusts. The argument is then advanced that state bodies administering land under trust in South Africa should be held legally accountable for their actions, and that potential plaintiffs can look to private law for the necessary remedies. Most state land trusts satisfy the private-law requirements for creating a trust relationship. Neither the apparent absence of a doctrine of aboriginal title in South Africa nor the unwillingness of South African courts to circumscribe the state's powers to act in the public interest override the basic principle that vulnerable groups should be entitled to legal protection. If this principle is accepted, the content of the South African state's fiduciary duty in relation to state land trusts should be developed by extending existing private-law rules on a case by case basis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".