MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075369993 · doi:10.2307/3552361

Do We Know Where We Are Going? The New Social Policy in Canada

2005· article· en· W2075369993 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Keith Banting

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman capitalRestructuringPovertySocial securityEconomicsRedistribution (election)Economic inequalityInvestment (military)Public policyRedistribution of income and wealthInequalityPublic economicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new paradigm has come to dominate social policy in Canada.1 As in many western nations, the understandings that underpinned the postwar welfare state have given way to new ideas about the social problems facing us in a global era and the appropriate responses to them. At its heart, this new paradigm represents a different conception of the sources of security in an insecure world. The fundamental purpose of the postwar social contract was security. The touchstone for the builders of the welfare state was the Depression of the 1930s, with its mass dislocation and widespread economic insecurity, and their aim was to protect citizens from what they saw as the universal risks associated with a market economy. A rapidly growing education system would expand equality of opportunity, and comprehensive health insurance would spread the benefits of health care to the population as a whole. And a full range of income transfer programs – unemployment insurance, workers ’ compensation, disability benefits, old age pensions, survivors ’ benefits, children’s allowances and social assistance – would protect citizens from the economic risks associated with life in a market economy. Fast forward to today. In contemporary policy circles, security no longer means protection from market disruptions. Such security as is available in the contemporary 1 This commentary summarizes a much longer and more fully documented analysis

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0390.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207