Avoiding blame, doing good, and claiming credit: Reforming Canadian income security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article examines federal legislation, An Act to Amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (Bill C‐36), from the vantage point of the contemporary politics of welfare state reform. Government decisions on the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) made in the 1990s noticeably generated political and administrative feedback to the policy agenda and policy development processes. Bill C‐36 was the response by policy‐makers to solve these issues and use the occasion to make other changes they had been contemplating. The legislative reforms contained the imposition of specific losses for one group; the introduction of benefits for another group, both geographically diffuse clienteles; and, for all covered by these programs, modest improvements in service provision. Inside the federal public service, officials responsible for the CPP Disability program acted effectively as policy entrepreneurs, making use of a window of opportunity, and the necessity of amending the legislation, prompted by the focusing event of a critical audit report.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".