Relentless Incrementalism: Deconstructing and Reconstructing Canadian Income Security Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most (if not the most) highly charged public debates in this country over the past decade has been about the role of economic imperatives in dismantling the foundations of the welfare state set out in the universalist model adopted in the post-war years. Ken Battle in his chapter is critical of the ongoing public discourse on this issue, which he considers as lacking both in substance and subtlety. He argues that this has led to a polarization of views and produced persistent mythologies which in his estimation have served to insulate government from effective criticism and prevented the occurrence of a truly needed, open and informed public debate on the present and future course of social policy. Battle describes the overall process of reform and developments in social policy in the last two decades as one of relentless incrementalism where cumulative, purposeful and patterned change has produced a substantial shift in the structure of the Canadian income security system. He concludes that on the whole the emerging post-welfare state will better serve Canada's evolving social, economic and political needs and sees little cause for continuing nostalgia over the fading universalist welfare state, which in his estimation never worked all that well.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".