Offloading social care responsibilities: recent experiences of local voluntary organisations in a remote urban centre in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Services offered by voluntary organisations are an integral but often overlooked component of health and social care. Of late, there has been a renewed interest in voluntary welfare provision as a viable alternative to state and market. Recent developments in welfare provision in Canada appear to have brought greater social care roles for the voluntary sector at the same time as new and arguably more restrictive funding and accountability mechanisms are being imposed by different arms of the state. To explore these issues more closely, the present paper examines the impressions and experiences of voluntary and formal sector providers of services for senior citizens and people with disabilities in a remote urban centre (population less than 100 000) in the interior of British Columbia, Canada. Two important operational pressures provide the context of the analysis: (1) reform of provincial government funding and regulation of voluntary services; and (2) the restructuring of welfare provision, especially in the areas of health care and social services. The authors found evidence of an escalating incursion of the state into local voluntary sector affairs that needs to be understood in the context of long-standing institutional links between government and 'professional' voluntary welfare provision in British Columbia. The results point to three important directions in contemporary local voluntary provision: (1) an emerging ethos of accountability, efficiency and competition in voluntary provision; (2) increasing pressure to centralise volunteer services; and consequently, (3) the potential erosion of flexibility and personalisation that are seen to characterise the voluntary sector.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".