Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, an increasing number of scholars have written about the evolving relationship between public and private social benefits in the United States. Following political scientist Jacob S. Hacker, historian Jennifer Klein traces the development of private health and pension benefits since the Progressive Era, with a specific focus on the years 1910--60. More recent episodes, such as the enactment of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) and the debate over Clinton's health security proposal, are briefly discussed in the concluding chapter. Despite similarities with Hacker's book, For All These Rights offers a distinct perspective on the public--private dichotomy in US social policy. This review essay formulates a critical overview of this excellent book before sketching a research agenda for the comparative analysis of the public--private dichotomy in social policy. As much as Hacker's book, For All These Rights is an excellent starting point for this type of comparative research. R�sum�: Au cours des derni�res ann�es, un nombre croissant de chercheurs ont �crit sur les liens de plus en plus serr�s qui existent entr� les avantages sociaux publics et priv�s aux Etats-Unis. Suivant les traces du politicologue Jacob S. Hacker, l'historienne Jennifer Klein dresse un tableau de l'�volution des prestations de maladie et de retraite depuis de d�but de � l'�re progressive �, avec une attention toute particuli�re pour les ann�es de 1910 �1960. Des exemples plus r�cents, comme la promulgation du programme ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) et le d�bat suscit� par la proposition de Services de sant� avanc�e par Clinton, sont analys�s bri�vement dans le dernier chapitre. Malgr� ses similarit�s avec l'ouvrage de Hacker, For All These Rights, de Jennifer Klein, offre une vision particuli�re de la dichotomie des services publics et priv�s dans les politiques sociales am�ricaines. Le pr�sent compte-rendu propose une analyse critique de cet excellent ouvrage avant d'esquisser un programme de recherche visant � r�aliser une �tude compar�e de cette dichotomie. Au m�me titre que l'ouvrage de Hacker, For All These Rights est un excellent point de d�part pour une �tude compar�e de ce type.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".