Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) can be considered a pioneer of soft forms of transnational governance. For some it has used its `soft powers' to contribute to the construction of a neoliberal world order, however Neoliberal solutions are not the only ones it has to offer, especially in the area of social policy. What accounts for the ability of one unit (the Directorate on Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, DELSA) of the Organization to fashion and enunciate such different prescriptions from that prescribed by the dominant Economic Department? In this article I suggest that development of the concept of `organizational discourse(s)' offers some insight. I develop the concept and use it to compare two moments in the formation of the OECD's discourses on the `reconciliation of work and family life', an area of social policy that has grown in importance as a result of women's rising labour force participation rates, the increase in the number of lone parent families, and the demographic challenges posed by falling fertility/ageing of OECD societies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".