Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past decade, the legal system in South Africa has moved from one premised on racism, sexism, and authoritarianism, to one that strives to provide human rights for all South Africans.The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996,' a much heralded document, created the possibilities for this transition, by embracing the classic range of civil and political rights found in the International Bill of Human Rights, 2 as well as a panoply of socio-economic and cultural rights.In addition, the Constitution incorporates a host of bodies mandated to implement and enforce the rights embodied in the "Bill of Rights" of the Constitution.3 These bodies include, among others, the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission, and the Commission for Gender Equality.4 The Constitution creates a constitutional court that sits at the apex of the court structure, and which is the final court of appeal on all matters constitutional.'Beyond the establishment of the Constitutional Court, the Constitution provides the basis for a fundamental restructuring of the entire legal system.Its purpose is to render the
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.011 |
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".