A comparative investigation into the representation of Russia in apartheid and post-apartheid era South African History textbooks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this comparative study we employed a quantitative approach, underpinned by the interpretivist paradigm, to analyse the content on Russia as found in Apartheid and post-Apartheid History textbooks.This was done by means of qualitative content analysis.The focus of the analysis was exclusively on the historical content or substantive knowledge as it related to Russia.What emerged was that the political eras Russia was studied under remained remarkably similar across the Apartheid and post-Apartheid eras.However, clear discernible similarities and differences were otherwise detectable.While big men dominated the content of both eras the approach adopted by the post-Apartheid era History textbooks towards them were generally more critical.While a fear of Communism was imbedded in the Apartheid era History textbooks, the opposite can be said of the post-Apartheid era textbooks.What this points to is that during both political eras the content on Russia was adapted to suit the prevailing identity politics, national narratives and ideology of the time -closed and insular under Apartheid and open and critical in the post-Apartheid era.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".