MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Evolution of Standing Rules in South Africa and their Significance in Promoting Social Justice

2002· article· en· W2771410415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tembeka Ngcukaitobi

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Journal on Human Rights · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionJurisprudenceLawEnforcementPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeScope (computer science)Social justiceHuman rightsSociologyLaw and economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A flexible approach to the rules of locus standi is necessary to promote access to courts and facilitate access to justice for the poor. This article surveys the development of standing rules in India, Canada and England, arguing that the jurisprudence from these jurisdictions is useful in interpreting s 38 of the Constitution. Section 38 significantly expands the scope of people who can sue for the enforcement of constitutional rights. The Constitution presents an opportunity for opening up the administrative process and for making it more accessible to ordinary people. This will be a significant step towards the establishment of a fair and a just society in which the courts are used as primary instruments to articulate and enforce constitutional rights.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Journal on Human RightsSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207