MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1624032951 · doi:10.1080/19371910802595281

Social Policy Devolution: A Historical Review of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States (1834–1999)

2009· review· en· W1624032951 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judith M. Dunlop

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Public Health · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsKing's University CollegeWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevolution (biology)IdeologyPolitical scienceState (computer science)Public administrationSocial policyPolitical economyEconomic growthPoliticsSociologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the recurring themes of devolution and social policy across time and nation in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Devolution is defined as the transfer of responsibility from national governments to state and local levels. Using a historical framework, the central/local tensions that characterize devolution and social policy in these countries are noted from 1834 to the late 1990s. This chronology shows that despite their geographical, ideological, and cultural differences, all of these countries have shifted responsibility for social provision back and forth between central and local governments in similar ways throughout the three eras delineated in this analysis. Clearly, devolution characterizes the current social policy climate in these three countries and across many Western democracies. Recent trends in the environment such as privatization, mandatory collaboration, community capacity building, and service integration are identified, and process questions are presented as a guide for practitioners who seek to explore the current devolution reality.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.012
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work in Public HealthSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207