The Human Rights Movement Against Apartheid South Africa: The Impact of Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the development of the anti-apartheid movement and the role of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions in bringing down the apartheid regime of South Africa. It first establishes the anti-apartheid movement as a human rights movement, fighting against institutionalized racism as a human rights violation. It then analyzes the movement’s development from disorganized and disconnected, to professional and universal. Focusing mainly on the developments within the United States and the United Kingdom, the movement can be seen as developing within government institutions as well as grassroots organizations. The implementation of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions by the movement are analyzed individually through specific examples. The impact of these campaigns collectively was very substantial in causing discontent within South Africa, leading to a fall in support for apartheid from within the state. The paper concludes that it was the combined efforts of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions to infiltrate South Africa socially, economically, and politically that truly brought an end to apartheid.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".