Conservative Ideas and Social Policy in the United States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores social policy development in the United States since the beginning of the George W. Bush presidency. Starting from an analysis of the discourse about compassionate conservatism at the centre of the 2000 presidential campaign and proceeding to a discussion of the meaning of the more recent ownership society blueprint, it underlines the fragmented nature of the conservative policy agenda in the United States. Yet, the article suggests that, despite this fragmentation, the ideological dominance of the right and the related absence of needed reform in key policy areas are of great significance for the future of federal social policy. Overall, the article shows how paying close attention to the nature of conservative ideas improves our understanding of social policy development in the United States. As argued, the old liberal and the traditionalist sides of American conservatism have inspired distinct yet related blueprints and reform proposals that both promote a scaling‐down of existing federal social programmes and a return to traditional forms of economic security (i.e. charity and personal savings). The article underlines the relationship between these blueprints and policy drift.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it