Rituals of Degradation: Administration as Policy in the Ontario Works Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the election of a neo-liberal provincial government in 1995, Ontario was at the forefront of work-based welfare reform in Canada. Many of the sweeping reforms carried out under the banner of the “Common Sense Revolution” received widespread coverage: for example, reductions in welfare rates, the introduction of the Ontario Works programme, the adoption of a zero-tolerance policy for so-called welfare fraud, and changes to the rules relating to common-law spousal relationships. However, much less attention has focused upon significant changes to the ways welfare is delivered. This paper critically interrogates a number of key changes to the Service Delivery Model in Ontario. After the passage of federal legislation in 1995, national entitlements to welfare have been terminated, replaced with local responsibility; this decentralization is changing not only the hierarchy of the regulation of poor people, but also the form and function of provision. In particular, there is evidence of the reinvention of administration towards the micro-regulation of job search and personal behaviour and the deterrence of welfare receipt as applicants and recipients are bureaucratically disentitled. Although administrative practices have historically acted as a secondary barrier to welfare receipt, the paper suggests that the current incarnation of work-enforcing reforms could be especially significant as the worlds of welfare and work continue to change.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".