Ways of Doing: Restorative Practices, Governmentality, and Provider Conduct in Post-Apartheid Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we consider the conduct of post-apartheid health care in a policy context directed toward entrenching democracy, ensuring treatment-adherent patients, and creating a healthy populace actively responsible for their own health. We ask how tuberculosis treatment, antiretroviral therapy, and maternal services are delivered within South Africa's health system, an institutional site of colonial and apartheid injustice, and democratic reform. Using Foucauldian and post-Foucauldian notions of governmentality, we explore provider ways of doing to, for, and with patients in three health subdistricts. Although restorative provider engagements are expected in policy, older authoritarian and paternalistic norms persist in practice. These challenge and reshape, even 'undo' democratic assertions of citizenship, while producing compliant, self-responsible patients. Alongside the need to address pervasive structural barriers to health care, a restorative approach requires community participation, provider accountability, and a health system that does with providers as much as providers who do with patients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".