MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138963961 · doi:10.1017/s0022278x20000658

Intimate crimes: heroin and the rise of amaphara in South Africa

2021· article· en· W3138963961 on OpenAlex
Mark Hunter

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Modern African Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeroinPunitive damagesSympathyCriticismCriminologyContext (archaeology)EthnographySociologyUnemploymentSex workGender studiesPolitical scienceGeographyEconomic growthPsychologySocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The term ‘ amaphara ’, possibly derived from ‘parasites’, burst into South African public culture in the 2010s to refer to petty thieves addicted to a heroin-based drug locally called whoonga/nyaope . Drawing on ethnography and media sources to interrogate the rise of ‘amaphara’, this paper argues that South Africa's heroin epidemic magnifies the attention – criticism but also sympathy – directed toward marginalised black men who have few prospects for social mobility. It locates amaphara in the national context where drug policy is largely punitive and youth unemployment rates are painfully high, but gives particular attention to families’ and communities’ experiences with intimate crimes, especially petty thefts. It further shows that amaphara is a contested term: heroin users are brothers, sons and grandchildren and they gain most of their income not from crime but by undertaking useful piece work in communities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.308 · 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