Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrid land tenure administration occurs in a number of South Africa’s state-subsidised housing projects and in the informal settlements from which the housing beneficiaries tend to be drawn. Ownership is the tenure form in most of these housing projects. Under ownership the law only recognises registered land transactions. Non-government tenure administration in Dunoon was organised by street and area committees that are part of the local South African National Civics Association (SANCO) branch, a community based organisation (CBO). SANCO is aligned with the ANC ruling party, and so Dunoon is a case of a CBO driving an alternative land tenure administration system using a form of private conveyancing operating in parallel and opposition to the official registration system for a period after first registration. Thus there was a party structure supporting a system running in opposition to the official system. The situation then evolved where the CBO encouraged registration as the risks to the buyer of off-register transactions became apparent when the official registration system emerged as the dominant land transaction option. Historical analysis and qualitative interviews inform the study. If hybrid governance is inescapable and if ownership titles meet beneficiaries’ needs and wants, then, ideally, state land administration organisations should engage households and community based organisations continually in title maintenance activities. To increase the uptake of registering land, changes to the rigid procedures required for registration should be explored to examine how certain arrangements and land tenure practices as they actually exist can be accommodated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".