Policy Change and the Politics of Ideas: The Emergence of the Canada/Quebec Pension Plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insistant sur l'impact direct des idées sur le changement politique, les auteurs se penchent sur l'adoption du Régime de rentes du Québec (RRQ) et du Régime de pensions du Canada (RPC) de 1965, en examinant deux questions étroitement liées: 1) Pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral a‐t‐il décidé de créer au milieu des années 1960 un système public de pension proportionnel aux revenus, en plus du Programme de la sécurité de la vieillesse alors en vigueur? et 2) Pourquoi ce nouveau système présente‐t‐il un taux de remplacement plus élevé que celui proposé initialement, de même qu'un régime différent pour le Québec? De manière à répondre à ces deux questions, les auteurs analysent les débats menant à l'adoption du RRQ et du RPC. Stressing the direct impact of ideas on policy change, this article explores the adoption of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans (C/QPP) in 1965 by addressing two closely related questions: in the mid‐1960s: why did the federal government decide to create an earnings‐related public pension system on top of the existing Old Age Security program? Second, why did that new system feature a replacement rate higher than initially proposed as well as a separate scheme for the province of Quebec? In order to answer these two questions, the article analyzes the debates leading to the enactment of the C/QPP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".