Social Exclusion and Double Jeopardy: The Management of Lone Mothers in the Market–State Social Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The popular version of social exclusion has given rise to various forms of welfare‐to‐work initiatives in most developed capitalist nations. Social inclusion, therefore, is commonly assumed to be achieved through paid work. The delivery of social welfare through employment activation programmes is consequential, as it necessitates an unusual cooperation between the welfare state and the labour market. With a focus on Ontario Works, a relatively mature example of Canada's residualized social welfare services, this article is an empirical analysis of the social space in which the state and the market merge – by design – and the resulting processes and outcomes of social exclusion that operate for women who parent alone. I begin with a brief review of the most popular concept of social exclusion, and the pre‐eminent place of paid work in related social policy responses, followed by a consideration of the ideological context producing and reinforced by work‐first programmes. Our attention is turned to a reconfigured notion of social exclusion as process and outcome, spontaneously set in motion and self‐perpetuating in the fused market–state social field. Through a case study of lone mother experiences of Ontario Works, the specific ideological practices through which welfare‐to‐work strategies operate to keep women in their place are described. I argue that the analysis of the market‐state as a unified social field – ordered according to the paired ideologies of market neo‐liberalism and conservative ‘family values’– is necessary for conceiving policy responses that are effective in interrupting the dynamic process–outcome iterations of social exclusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".