MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055217746 · doi:10.1080/15544770802367788

Women, Poverty Policy, and the Production of Neoliberal Politics in Ontario, Canada

2009· article· en· W2055217746 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kendra Coulter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women Politics & Policy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPoliticsNeoliberalism (international relations)Political scienceGovernment (linguistics)SociologyEconomic growthCulture of povertyEthnographyPolitical economyPublic administrationBasic needsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article contributes to our understanding of the production of neoliberal policies and political culture by offering an anthropological analysis of women, poverty policy, and Third Way politics in Ontario, Canada. After tracing the history of neoliberal politics globally and in Ontario, I consider two examples of women's attempts to shape poverty policy drawn from ethnographic research in the legislature. The first centers on a social assistance recipient who was unexpectedly thrust into the media spotlight, thus given a chance to speak publicly about Ontario's welfare policies. The second focuses on a consciously planned challenge to policy by a coalition of feminist researchers and front‐line workers. These cases illuminate the challenges facing feminists who seek to shape Third Way government policy, as discussion of gender and socioeconomic inequality is actively avoided by politicians, and women's experiences of poverty and demands for action are ignored, obfuscated or re‐packaged.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women Politics & PolicySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207