Bibliographic record
Abstract
What was at stake in social politics at the dawn of the welfare state? Most welfare-state scholars have described the birth of social programs as the development of a set of rules governing the redistribution of resources across individuals and groups. “…[W]hatever form it takes, the distinguishing mark of social policy seems to be its character as a unilateral transfer, in contrast to the bilateral exchange of the market,” writes Hugh Heclo (1974, 2) in the opening chapter of his classic treatment of the early politics of social protection. Heclo characterizes the construction of the modern welfare state as a fundamental change in the conditions under which individuals could claim resources from governments, “an expansion of state transfer programs from the narrow and disqualifying relief of the poor law to a vast range of transfers by right”. Peter Baldwin (1990), in his masterful comparative study of the politics of social insurance, similarly identifies at the core of political conflict over social policy a redistributive tug of war. “…[A]pproached from the right angle,” he writes, “the nuts and bolts of social policy testify to the heated struggles of classes and interests”. In Baldwin's view, battles among workers, employers, and early social policy makers over the structure of welfare state programs were primarily “disputes among groups for redistributive advantage, contests over solidarity…”.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.349 | 0.157 |
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".