Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent emergence of the 'third way' as a construct formalised by Anthony Giddens, charting the middle ground between social democracy and neo-liberalism, follows an historically recursive trend. This latest variant, unlike its predecessors, has found favour across the world. The disparateness of opinion over its philosophy, together with a lack of research into its implementation requires data on its application to validate assertions that it either increases, or decreases, democracy and civic engagement. This research draws on the perceptions of 35 elite informants within government, nongovernmental organizations, for-profit, union and community sectors across four inferred 'third way' sites, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America and Australia. Using recursive methods within and across respondent interviews, these perceptions were transcribed and coded. The narratives that formed the basis for interpretive inquiry were cast in a critical theoretical context to arrive at an understanding of what the 'third way' means in practice. The findings of this research indicated that respondents had mixed levels of knowledge about Giddens and the 'third way' and felt apprehension that dissent against government policy was being curtailed through funding and other strictures. The implications of the research suggest that the 'third way' (or new social democracy) is transportable from left to right and back again. The apparent primary intent of the 'third way' is the maintenance of government (the political imperative) at all costs with a conservative normative agenda (the moral imperative) to direct this process. Thus, traditional forms of social critique find no home in the 'third way'.
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 | 0.029 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| 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".