Bibliographic record
Abstract
All people are in need of care at some point in their life. Although families and kin used to provide care in all societies, the division between family and work life have led to new care arrangements. In today’s societies not only families but also the state, the market and nonprofit organisations are involved in care. The internal dynamics between these sectors are explained in certain welfare literature as a “care diamond” where local conditions determine the prominence of the different sectors in this care diamond. In addition, international bodies furthered discourses on human rights, often in the form of layered social citizenship, that include notions of care towards individuals. Welfare states in the North, the East Asian developmental states and Latin America have all followed distinct paths in trying to provide care to individuals and realise social citizenship. The social policies implemented in Africa are sometimes lead along these paths but have met with limited success. The logic of the care diamond is used in this article to focus on specific South African policy initiatives related to care and families. Such policies are often nudged in specific directions by international understandings of social citizenship. Although certain care policies are directed towards individuals regardless of family structures, specific family policy directions in South Africa are stuck in idealised family forms. Furthermore, the gender dynamics and the intersections between gender, class and race that are prominent in all care relationships are largely ignored in family and related policies on care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".