MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197447271 · doi:10.1080/03056244.2021.1962838

Social movements as learning spaces: the case of the defunct Anti-Privatisation Forum in South Africa

2021· article· en· W3197447271 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mondli Hlatshwayo

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of African Political Economy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation SingaporeNational Research FoundationInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsSocial movementPolitical scienceGlobal SouthPoliticsGeographyEconomic geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Social movements often become spaces for learning, although this type of learning has been overlooked by activists and scholars alike. Analysing the case of the collapsed Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF), the article submits that the APF was not only an organisation that challenged privatisation, but also a learning space for activists from middle-class and working-class backgrounds. Non-formal educational platforms, such as political education workshops, organisational and practical skill training sessions and campaigns organised by the APF and its partner organisations, were instrumental in transferring skills to community-based activists. After the demise of the APF, its activists applied the skills and competences they had acquired to continue advancing social and economic justice in other organisations. Furthermore, community-based activists educated middle-class activists about the conditions of working-class communities and the challenges of building working-class movements in post-apartheid South Africa.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.020
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of African Political EconomySame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207