MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006443130 · doi:10.1353/cjs.2004.0025

Changing the Paradigm: Family Responsibility or Investing in Children

2004· article· en· W2006443130 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jane Jenson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParadigm shiftSociologyState (computer science)Work (physics)Public policyCivil societyPublic relationsSocial responsibilityPolitical scienceLawEpistemologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1980s and even more markedly in the 1990s, new public policies and programs with "child" or "children" in the title have proliferated in Canada. This article makes the claim that this shift in policy focus marks the appearance of a new policy paradigm. The article supports this claim first by describing change over time, characterizing it as shift from a paradigm in which parents have full responsibility for their children's well-being to one that can be labeled an investing-in-children paradigm, in which responsibility for children's well-being is shared by families and the broader community. In each case, the role of the state and its public policy choices are quite different. The article next accounts for the change, attributing it not only to new social and economic risks but also to the work of a social-learning network made up of advocates and experts from civil society and inside the state.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.041
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations93
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of SociologySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207