Workfare's Cousin: Exploring a Labour‐force Enhancement Experiment in Cape Breton*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bien que les Néo‐Ecossais n'aient pas encore été soumis au type de réformes d'aide sociale édictées dans d'autres provinces, certains programmes visant à promouvoir la participation de la main‐d'œuvre par les bénéficiaires de paiements de transfert gouvernementaux ont récemment été mis en place à l'île du Cap‐Breton, la région de la province la plus marginale sur le plan économique. Cet article étudie la structure de l'un de ces programmes, parrainé par le gouvernement fédéral. L'analyse présentée ici avance l'idée que, en dépit du discours public officiel, la conception du programme n'apporte que peu d'avantages à la collectivité locale et à ses citoyens le plus dans le besoin, mais véhicule des avantages idéologiques importants pour l'état. Même si le programme ne peut être appelé un programme de travail obligatoire, au sens strict de l'expression, il reflète la même idéologie néo‐libérale que celle qui a inspiré des réformes sociales plus draconiennes. Though Nova Scotians have not yet been subjected to the type of provincial welfare “reforms” enacted in other provinces, some programs aimed at promoting work‐force participation by recipients of government transfer payments have recently been introduced to Cape Breton, the province's most economically marginal region. This paper examines the structure of one such program, sponsored by the federal government. The analysis presented here suggests that, despite public rhetoric, the program's design delivers limited benefits to the local community and to its neediest citizens, but carries major ideological benefits for the state. While the program cannot be called workfare, in the strict sense of the term, it does reflect the same neo‐liberal ideology that has inspired more Draconian social reforms.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".