The counter‐reparative impacts of South Africa's reparations gap: victims as reparations ‘experts’ and the role of victims’ organizations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article offers a victim‐centric analysis of reparations relating to apartheid in South Africa. We identify a multi‐dimensional ‘reparations gap’, which refers to the disconnect between victims and the state in relation to reparations, including the meanings attributed to reparations, and the perception, evaluation, and experience of reparations. The reparations gap has had profoundly ‘counter‐reparative’ impacts on the relationship between victims and the government. Appreciating victims as reparations ‘experts’ with unique knowledge rooted in lived experience, this article explores their narratives of the ongoing need for reparations, specifically relating to a nexus of historically induced structural and systemic injustice. The article calls for the comprehensive and continuous participation of victims and their organizations to close the reparations gap.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it