Regulating the Elderly: Old Age Pensions and the Formation of a Pension Bureaucracy in Ontario, 1929-1945
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the emergence of means-tested old age pensions in Ontario in the context of the Great Depression and World War II. Ontario's old age pension scheme, it argues, was launched in 1929 with weak political commitment, little bureaucratic-preparation, and an almost complete absence of administrative experience at the provincial and municipal level in assessing and responding to need on a mass scale. The article examines the complex interplay among federal, provincial, and local government authorities in the politics of pension administration throughout the 1929-1945 era, arguing that local control of pension decision-making in the early years of the Depression provided two divergent models of pension entitlement both as charity and as an earned social right. After 1933 governments at both the provincial and federal level centralized decision-making over pension administration in order to standardize and restrict pension entitlement, contain its rapidly rising costs, and enforce more efficiently the concept of parental maintenance upon children. World War II undermined the concept of pensions as charity by broadly expanding the boundaries of entitlement both for the elderly and their children. By 1945 means-tested pensions had few supporters within or outside of government, laying the basis for the emergence of a universal system of old age security in 1951.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".