Penal-welfare systems in a (post)colonial world: The rise and disregard of alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apartheid South Africa developed a notoriously punitive and racist approach to alcohol and drug use. Less reported is that the state gave significant attention to rehabilitation, first for the minority white population and later for black South Africans. This paper asks why in the post-apartheid era—despite a huge influx of cheap heroin, methamphetamines, and other drugs—the government showed a relative disregard for rehabilitation. Addressing this question, the paper points to the configuration of forces driving public rehabilitation in the colonial era included the upliftment of “poor whites,” the need to maintain black workers’ productivity, and the ascendancy of the disease concept of addiction. In the post-1994 period these forces waned as a multiracial middle class came to purchase treatment in private rehabilitation facilities, the disease concept fell into retreat, and mass unemployment helped to position poor black drug users as an “undeserving poor.” The paper contributes to comparative studies on penal-welfare systems and the recent attention to drug histories from the global South.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".