Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un thème important de la documentation sur les restrictions des politiques sociales d'État au Canada porte sur les idées dominantes concernant l'État providence, qui ont considérablement changé. Un aspect de cette dynamique qui a reçu peu d'attention empirique est l'opinion publique sur les politiques de l'État providence. Cet article se penche sur la dynamique et la structure de l'opinion au fil du temps en ce qui a trait aux « droits conventionneis » des dispositions sociales des services et avantages de l'aide sociale, de même qu'aux « nouveaux droits de citoyenneté sociale » qui mettent l'accent sur les garanties d'égalité des groupes désavantagés fondées sur des motifs hors classe. Les auteurs arrivent à la conclusion que les attitudes à l'égard de la politique sociale canadienne semblent structurées par des dimensions qui peuvent s'insérer utilement dans un cadre de citoyenneté sociale. An important theme in the literature on the retrenchment of state social policies in Canada has been that dominant ideas about the welfare state have substantially altered. One aspect of this dynamic that has received little empirical attention is public opinion relevant to welfare state politics. This paper looks at the dynamics and structure of opinion over time concerning “conventional rights” to social provision of welfare services and benefits, as well as “new social citizenship rights” that focus on equality guarantees to disadvantaged groups based on non-class grounds. It finds that Canadian social policy attitudes appear to be structured by dimensions that can be usefully ordered by a social citizenship framework.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".