MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593060846

Relentless Incrementalism: Deconstructing and Reconstructing Canadian Income Security Policy

2001· preprint· en· W1593060846 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ken Battle

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2001
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncrementalismWelfare stateBattlePolitical sciencePoliticsPolitical economyState (computer science)Public policyLaw and economicsPublic administrationEconomicsLawHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207