Afskeid van apartheid - die politieke koers van die tydskrif Woord en Daad in die periode 1967-1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The journal Woord en Daad ('Word and Action), which discussed political and social issues from a Christian perspective, supported the policy of apartheid until the mid-seventies. The editors regarded this policy as a logical consequence of a view which they based on the Bible and in which nations (or peoples) occupy a very important place. The journal advocated the rapid development as well as the territorial expansion of the so-called black homelands. By the end of the seventies it was realized that this policy was no longer feasible. Woord en Daad always conde1nned all forms of discrimination, but initially did not regard most apartheid measures as discriminatory. In later years the journal condemned discriminatory laws in stronger terms, but still supported government policy in general. In a very cautious way Woord en Daad prepared its readers, who were mostly Afrikaans-speaking and members of the Reformed ('Dopper'J Church, for the radical political changes of the nineties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".