The voluntary sector and the realignment of government: A street-level study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper examines the realignment of government from a street-level vantage point. Gleaning inspiration from studies of governmentality and institutional ethnography, the study argues that street-level processes were intertwined with the consolidation of neoliberal forms of rule. This connection was evident in the growing centrality of voluntary organizations in social administration, which went hand-in-hand with a normalization of more extreme forms of poverty. In making this case, the paper draws on research conducted in Fredericton and Saint John, New Brunswick. Sommaire: Le présent article examine le réalignement du gouvernement sous l'angle du point de vue du grand public. S'inspirant d‘études sur la gouvernementalité et l'ethnographie institutionnelle, l'article soutient que les processus grand public ont été entrelacés avec la consolidation des formes néolibérales de règlement. Cette connexion fut évidente dans la centralité croissante des organismes bénévoles au sein de l'administration sociale, qui alla de concert avec une normalisation de formes de pauvreté plus extrêmes. Pour défendre ce point de vue, l'article se fonde sur des travaux de recherche menés à Fredericton et Saint John au Nouveau-Brunswick.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".