Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many countries, social investment viewpoints are very much emphasized in diverse areas of social policies. This trends are related with many factors, such as high unemployment rates, growing numbers of the old population, and inefficiencies of the old social welfare systems. Even though Korea is at the stage where the net level of welfare expenditure should be increased, Korean society is also facing the above mentioned social problems which should be solved by new social policies. Thus, it is helpful for Korean society to review the realities, problems, and featuring characteristics of social investment policies among major countries where those policies were already implemented, in order to get useful framework to evaluate many policy alternatives Korean society might adopt. This study reviews social investment policies among western welfare countries according to the three major welfare regimes-liberal, conservative, and social democratic. The findings show that countries in liberal welfare regime, such as Canada, England, and the US, increase the level of total expenditures spending social investment policies and emphasize the role of private sectors providing welfare services. Conservative welfare regime also strongly underscores the policies focusing on social investment viewpoints. Sweden and Denmark, the countries representing social democratic welfare regime do not show the dramatic change in old welfare systems, but try to increase the efficiencies of welfare systems and the number of service providers. The study also analyses social investment policies among major western countries according to the policy objectives-children, women, and the elderly. Children are the most important welfare beneficiaries in the social investment policies. Care services and educational services for younger children are very much emphasized in most countries. For women, many institutional changes and new services increasing the possibilities managing work and family are found in many countries. Actually the services for children and for women are interwound with each other. The polices for the elderly include job training services and social care services. In most countries these policies for the elderly are considered as highly urgent policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.013 |
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".