MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Housing Transformation in Port St Johns, South Africa Since 1994.

2013· article· en· W2769362759 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pakama Q. Siyongwana, Vusumzi Sihele

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Ecology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesegregationPort (circuit theory)Government (linguistics)Low income housingLocal governmentBusinessPopulationEconomic growthPublic housingUrban planningAffordable housingEconomicsPublic administrationPolitical scienceSociologyDemographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports on the results of an investigation on housing transformation in Port St Johns, South Africa between 1994 and 2010. The objectives for this study are to: review relevant information on housing policy framework in South Africa; examine housing delivery and the desegregation of the different population groups; and identify constraints towards housing delivery and desegregation in the town. The empirical data for the study was obtained from Port St Johns’ property registers, through individual interviews with key role players of Port St Johns’ urban spatial planning, people involved in the property industry, and long-term residents of the town. The findings indicate that in 1994 housing delivery was stagnant and segregation high. Although marginal, by 2010 housing delivery for low-income groups, and desegregating of property ownership have also made some step. Encouraging Black property ownership through housing delivery was constrained by the underperformance of local municipal leadership and urban variations of government funding for development proj ects. Obstacles to desegregation were overpriced houses, low housing market, poor infrastructure and housing properties without title deeds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human EcologySame topicUrban and Rural Development ChallengesFrench-language works237,207