MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413254496 · doi:10.1080/23323256.2025.2469679

Post-pandemic women-led vigilantism: implications for gender, power and popular justice in the rural Eastern Cape

2025· article· en· W4413254496 on OpenAlexafffund
Anelitha Tukela, Kathleen M. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropology Southern Africa · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsCapeEconomic JusticePower (physics)PandemicPolitical scienceCriminologyGender studiesSociologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SocioeconomicsLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores women-led vigilantism in South Africa’s rural Eastern Cape province following the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on long-term ethnography, we argue that women vigilantes perceive violent discipline as a necessary response to community leaders’ and police failure to punish crimes that primarily impact single women. We argue firstly that this women-led vigilantism may be seen not only as a manifestation of popular justice, but also as a form of popular gender justice, taking its form in relation to manifestations of patriarchal violence and vulnerability to which it responds. We also connect women-led vigilantism to a rise in illicit hard drug use among young, marginalised men, highlighting how vigilantism relies on and sustains constructions of “the criminal.” Finally, despite belief among these women that their vigilantism is winning them security and respect, we question whether their actions effectively address the patriarchal power relations that shape women’s vulnerability given their focus on punishing young, drug-dependent men who have little social power.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropology Southern AfricaSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207