MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978451725 · doi:10.1068/c0956r

Does Nationalism Trigger Welfare-State Disintegration? Social Policy and Territorial Mobilization in Belgium and Canada

2010· article· en· W1978451725 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Béland, André Lecours

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Government and Policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalismDecentralizationOpposition (politics)FlemishWelfare statePolitical economyPolitical scienceSocial WelfarePublic administrationSocial policyWelfareState (computer science)Development economicsEconomicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the late 1990s a growing number of scholars have explored the relationship between decentralization, nationalism, and social policy development. In this paper we explore the impact of substate nationalism on the territorial integration or disintegration of the welfare state in Belgium and Canada. As argued, although substate nationalist mobilization is intuitively associated with welfare-state disintegration, there is little evidence to support this claim. In Belgium, despite Flemish nationalist pressures, francophone opposition and major constitutional obstacles have prevented the decentralization of the federal social insurance system. In Canada competitive nation building between the federal and Quebec governments has not led to the erosion of social protection. Instead, this logic has favored the creation of a decentralized and asymmetrical welfare state while exacerbating pressures for social policy expansion. In order to explain such contrasted outcomes we draw on the existing scholarship on the role of ideas and of institutions in policy development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning C Government and PolicySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207