MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967472593 · doi:10.4102/lit.v40i1.1592

‘Wit’ armoede en ‘wit’ bevoorregting in enkele Afrikaanse jeugromans

2019· article· nl· W2967472593 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Loraine van der Westhuizen, Van Niekerk

Bibliographic record

VenueLiterator · 2019
Typearticle
Languagenl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Movements and Cultural Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)PovertyPrivilege (computing)White privilegeRepresentation (politics)SociologyGender studiesArtRace (biology)Political sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘White’ poverty and ‘white’ privilege in selected Afrikaans novels for young adults. This article examines the representation of ‘white’ poverty in selected Afrikaans novels for young adults published between 1990 and 2014: Droomwa (1990) by Barrie Hough, Die optog van die aftjoppers (1994) by George Weideman, Vaselinetjie (2004) by Anoeschka von Meck, Roepman (2004) by Jan van Tonder, Lien se lankstaanskoene (2008) by Derick van der Walt and Iewers vlieg daar fairy dust (2014) by Marisa Haasbroek. In these novels, poverty functions as a feature of the so-called problem book and coming of age novel. The novels are analysed, however, by employing critical whiteness studies as an overarching theoretical framework. Indicators of the ‘white’ characters’ poverty are identified with regard to description, dialogue, actions and place with the aim of determining how and why these representations are evident in the novels. Apartheid is the backdrop for two of the novels; here, ‘white’ poverty is portrayed in a nostalgic manner. In the other novels, ‘white’ poverty is portrayed as irreconcilable with ‘whiteness’; ‘white’ privilege prevails.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiteratorSame topicSocial Movements and Cultural IdentityFrench-language works237,207