MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2631610529

Curbing Reckless and Predatory Lending: A Statutory Analysis of South Africa's National Credit Act

2016· article· en· W2631610529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Schmulow

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Online (University of Wollongong) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory lawLegislationBusinessPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a statement and an analysis of South Africa's statutory provisions aimed at curbing reckless lending, and preventing predatory lending, to financial consumers. The focus of the article is on the statutory mechanisms for combatting reckless and predatory lending, including a critique of the success or otherwise of the implementation of the relevant legislation. The article aims to provide a comparative analysis of what is, overall, an innovative and effective regime, the aim of which is to protect vulnerable financial consumers from reckless and predatory lending practices. As such, it is hoped, that the article will provide useful techniques for the protection of borrowers in other common law jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada and the United States, or indeed wherever vulnerable consumers of finance are liable to be exploited.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Online (University of Wollongong)Same topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207