MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W63445108 · doi:10.38140/sjch.v30i2.465

Oral history: Research in the South African context

2005· article· en· W63445108 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Journal for Contemporary History · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicOral History, Memory, Narrative Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOral historyDocumentationHistoryContext (archaeology)Comparative historical researchAncient historyPolitical scienceAnthropologyArchaeologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral history as a technique for historical documentation was initiated in the North. It has been recognised as an academic discipline in the United States, England, Germany, Spain and Canada for more than half a century. But it is as relevant in developing countries, as was shown by the number of delegates from the South at the thirteenth conference of the International Oral History Society in Rome in June 2004. Oral history has been practised in South Africa since the late 1970s. With the advent of democracy, however, new categories of oral history practitioners, new types of projects and new methodologies appeared. My purpose here is to assess and to comment upon these practices and methodologies. To what extent do they differ from those in use in the rest of the world? Is there a (South) African way of doing oral history?

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.021 · 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