Социальная политика правительства либералов и канадский федерализм
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to the relationship between federal government and the provinces in the social sphere. There are the great differences among provincial systems in Canada. The main question is the balance between national standards and provincial diversity. What is the future of the provincial diversity? Shall it be expected to continue or Ottawa can use its fiscal pressure to attach national standards. From our point of view, a variety of systems of provincial aid is a process inevitable because of the policies pursued by the liberal government the gradual reduction of expenses from Ottawa to provincial social programs and attempt to strengthen the provision of national standards. Sure, the main task of the liberals can not be unapproved: there are no backward provinces and backwoods living separately from the plans of the rest of Canada on the territory of Canada. But the strict unilateral action of Ottawa, in any case can not be approved. It is important to find the optimal model of social policy which would respect the interests of the provincial and maintain the national standards. The presence of such diversity of social systems suggest about the difficulties of creating such systems, that would respond to the interest of both levels: federal and provincial. And the resolving of this problem is not observed in the nearest future. There are fears that the adoption of one system for all would only worsen the problem. Perhaps, therefore, the selection has still made in favor of provincial diversity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.011 |
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 it