MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022337225 · doi:10.1300/j134v06n01_05

Welfare Reform and the Empowerment of Poor Women

2002· article· en· W2022337225 on OpenAlexaff
Debra McPhee, Myra Marcus, Lea Caragata, Susan Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Poverty · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfare reformEmpowermentLegislationPoliticsPromotion (chess)Economic JusticePublic relationsWelfareIntervention (counseling)Moral responsibilitySociologyPower (physics)Action (physics)Social policyPolitical sciencePublic administrationPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following paper provides an analysis of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and the specific impact of this legislation on poor women and children. It is argued that the current political/policy climate demands that helping professionals need to rethink their intervention methods in working with poor women. Proposed is an innovative response to the needs of this constituency which utilizes Freire's (1971) theories of popular education and “conscientization” as a model. The proposed model is founded on the belief that in order to achieve lasting change and real self-sufficiency women welfare recipients will need to begin to recognize themselves as political beings with the potential for exercising both individual and collective power. Moreover, it is argued that social workers and other frontline professionals have a critical role to play in the promotion of social justice, and social action on behalf of the poor clients they serve.

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)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PovertySame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207