MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Welfare to What? After Workfare in Toronto

2005· article· en· W2034446925 on OpenAlex
Ernie Lightman, Andrew Mitchell, Dean Herd

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Social Security Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkfareWelfareWork (physics)Psychological interventionSocial assistanceQuality (philosophy)Labour economicsFace (sociological concept)Job lossBusinessDemographic economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthUnemploymentSociologyMedicineEngineeringNursingMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An employment survey among people in Toronto who left Ontario Works — a classic “work‐first” regime — shows clear secondary labour market status. Most interventions typical of work‐first programmes did not have a positive effect on job quality: contrary to the “stepping stones” theory that poor initial jobs lead to better jobs, those who changed jobs after leaving assistance experienced poorer job quality. A shift in orientation to “sustainable employment” is required to address the employment needs of those on social assistance. Policy must also address the fact that the social assistance caseload includes a size able group that face significant barriers to employment other than education or skills.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.360 · 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