MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516247295 · doi:10.3138/jcs.40.3.186

Ideology, Policy, and Economy: Liberal, New Democratic and Conservative Reforms of Ontario’s Welfare Program

2006· article· en· W1516247295 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Thomas R. Klassen, Daniel D. Buchanan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyWelfarePoliticsPolitical economyDemocracyWelfare reformEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)New DealWelfare statePower (physics)Coalition governmentPolitical scienceMarket economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1985 to 2000, in an unprecedented development in Canadian politics, three different parties governed the province of Ontario, each for a five-year period. Each party sought to reform the province’s welfare program in keeping with its ideological position. The authors demonstrate the manner in which welfare policies interacted with prevailing economic and labour market conditions to create dramatic fluctuations in the number of welfare recipients. The analysis shows that governing parties generally sought to match policies to economic conditions, but were often unable to do so because of their ideological stance or because of policies inherited from the previous government. The authors’ findings also reveal that it was in fact the New Democratic Party, after 1992, that initiated a restrictive policy of welfare benefits and eligibility, a policy direction continued by the Progressive Conservative Party once it assumed power in 1995.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207