Socio-Economic Inequalities, the Less Privileged and the Quest for Social Justice in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper posits that the problem of political instability and social disorder is closely connected to the problem of unjustifiable inequality in the distribution of benefits and burdens in contemporary African societies. The paper argues that to effectively resolve the problem of socio-political instability and disorder in Africa today, adequate attention must be paid to the question of distributive justice. This work adopts John Rawls’ Theory of Justice as his theoretical framework with emphasis laid on his Difference Principle, which prioritizes the demand for social equality over that of liberty. This would reduce the problem of social inequality and its attendant negative consequences, which include widespread poverty and unemployment. Also, this version of the Difference Principle is designed to ensure that social benefits and burdens are distributed equally to the advantage of everyone in the society. The philosophical methods of critical analysis and conceptual clarification are employed, while the significance of this work is to show that equality in the distribution of benefits and burdens would undermine ill-will between the privileged and the less privileged, which is a source of tension that generates political instability and social disorder.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".