A Future of Justice Inclusion: Examining Access to Justice in South Africa through the ‘Ethic of Care’ and ‘Complexity’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In South Africa, a number of obstructions exist to realising the right to access to justice as enshrined by section 34 of the South African constitution. Globally, many countries grapple with access to justice due to a number of multi-layered and complex causes. This article explores traces, connections, definitions and perceptions related to access to justice so as to allow for a deeper understanding of persisting justice problems. It employs a multi-disciplinary approach that examines worldviews on access to justice in South Africa through the lens of what Sohail Inayatullah terms ‘other ways of knowing’. These worldviews are also considered through the framework of the ‘ethic of care’ as formulated by Carol Gilligan and connected to the notion of ‘complexity’ as understood by Yvonne Malan and Paul Cilliers. The worldviews explored represent ‘different voices’ that discloses a possibility for a future of justice inclusion. The article calls for a people-centred approach to access of justice, underpinned by notions of humility, complexity, concreteness, and particularity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".