MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1099441940 · doi:10.3138/cjh.ach.50.2.262

William Beveridge in New Zealand: Social Security and World Security

2015· article· en· W1099441940 on OpenAlex
John Stewart

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueJournal of History · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial securityWelfare stateGovernment (linguistics)SociologyPolitical economyState (computer science)Political scienceWelfarePublic administrationLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1948 William Beveridge, one of the architects of Britain’s welfare state, visited New Zealand and gave public addresses focused in particular on two themes: social security and world security. In the former, Beveridge outlined his welfare philosophy which he used to critique the New Zealand Labour government’s policies. In the latter, Beveridge proposed the re-ordering of world affairs to ensure no further wars and to resist Soviet totalitarianism. For Beveridge, social security and world security were indissolubly linked: it was pointless having the former unless the latter could be guaranteed, and moreover, it was liberal societies of the type he proposed that were best equipped to promote harmonious international relations. In all of his speeches, Beveridge emphasized New Zealand’s essentially British nature. Both countries were members of the same “family” and so had common cause as well as a shared history in social and world affairs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.236 · 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