Canadian Perceptions of Inequality in the Context of Policy Discourse
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Inequality is a common topic in institutional policy discourse, and it has been defined in a variety of ways. However, there has only been limited consideration of its various operating meanings among the public itself. This paper examines the structure of inequality in the perceptions of Canadians and relates this to some general themes in institutional policy discourse on inequality. By institutional policy discourse we mean the discussions and ideas that surround the formal development of a particular policy area (Brooks, 2003, pp. 8-10: Howlett & Ramesh, 2003, pp. 121-122: John, 1998, pp. 157-159). Themes in policy discourse are associated with different phases of institutional and governmental ideas about inequality and which groups are most severely affected by it. While formal policy discourse may contain ideas about both objective and subjective aspects of inequality, public opinion about inequality is primarily subjective or perceptual in nature, although it can be influenced by both these elements. The four general and schematic hypotheses that guide the present work will be presented in detail later, in conjunction with results of analysis. All of these hypotheses concern the way in which themes of policy discourse on inequality relate to the structure of public opinion on inequality. Although there are schematic hypotheses underlying the work, the analysis involves both exploration and hypothesis testing. This arises from the generality of the hypotheses, subjective aspects of their interpretation, and from some aspects of the analytic techniques used. It is also worth noting that although the primary goal of the paper is an exploration and preliminary testing of the structure of Canadian opinion on inequality, our results may have broader implications. (1) Occasionally, theoretical sources from other countries are mentioned because formal policy discourse does sometimes draw on developments elsewhere. Theoretical Perspective The basic theory that drives the explanations offered here is that there is a series of historical stages in institutional public policy discourse concerning inequality, and these stages will be at least partially mirrored in the structure of popular opinions about inequality and public policy. While we cannot actually study the relationship between institutional public policy themes and mass public opinion on inequality over the passage of time, we can describe the emergence of themes in institutional policy discourse and see if that historical perspective is consistent with the current cross-sectional structure of public perceptions of inequality. In light of the above, it is important to define those stages of institutional policy discourse about inequality that we expect to find reflected in the structure of current public opinion. Policy discourse about inequality and the severity of inequality experienced by various groups, if viewed in terms of modern times, follows this sequence: * Inequality is not defined in highly abstract or objective terms, but is linked to ideas about the comparative advantages or disadvantages of different regions, cultural, linguistic or religious groups. * Inequality will be viewed in objective, abstract economic or statistical terms easily measured in terms of income deficiency, inequality indices or poverty rates. In some cases, highly aggregated pictures of the demographic concentration of income deficiency come into play here. * Inequality begins to be defined in terms that go significantly beyond economic or demographic indicators and have a highly symbolic, identity or rights-oriented aspect. We expect that elements of these stages of policy discourse will be reflected in the structure of public opinion about inequality in Canada. Note that opinions and discourse about some groups may be related to more than one of the above themes. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,028 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».