MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378832449 · doi:10.1177/00220094231178705

Independence as Discovery: Mozambique's 1975 Nationalization of Funeral Services

2023· article· en· W4378832449 on OpenAlexaff
David Morton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary History · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Cabinet (room)Context (archaeology)State (computer science)Government (linguistics)Political scienceEconomic historyLawEconomic growthPublic administrationHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 1975, a month after Mozambique's independence from Portugal, the state nationalized all health care, schooling, and legal counsel, so that all Mozambicans would have equal access to these key services – at least theoretically. The fourth, seemingly anomalous sector to be nationalized on the ‘Day of Nationalizations’: funeral services. The inflationary costs of burial in the capital, Lourenço Marques (today's Maputo) came to the attention of cabinet ministers only during the few weeks they had been ministers. Reacting with disgust, they decided there would be no ‘commercialization of death’ in the People's Republic of Mozambique. Based largely on interviews with the former minister of health and with Isaac Araújo, whose family ran perhaps the first African-owned funeral services business in Lourenço Marques, this article uses the episode to discuss the nature of government decision-making during the very earliest days of independence, a period that I argue deserves special attention. Emphasized is the role that Lourenço Marques played as context: how for neophyte ministers, learning to wield the levers of state was also a process of discovery about life in the capital city.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.013
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary HistorySame topicAfrican history and culture studiesFrench-language works237,207