The universal in the social: Universalism, universality, and universalization in <scp>C</scp>anadian political culture and public policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article provides a conceptual analysis of universalism, universality, and universalization in the Canadian context, important for students, activists, and practitioners of social policy for better understanding the content of debates and examining the ever‐shifting balance between universal programs and other types of social provisions. Three perspectives are evident in public opinion and political discourse in social policy making: the anti‐universalists, administrative universalists, and the active universalists. This article also identifies several kinds of universality: symbolic, tenuous, stalled, restrictive, and expansive. In a society of growing diversity, the relationship between the plural and the universal has led to theorizing about new notions of universalism. The social is a political space of multiple jurisdictions, governance relations, policies and citizen identities. The article argues that while retrenchment and austerity politics are present realities, the community values associated with universalism and the policy techniques linked with universality have not been abandoned.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".