MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Social Exclusion in a Comparative Context

2004· article· en· W2093138269 on OpenAlex
Bill Reimer

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociologia Ruralis · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocity (cultural anthropology)OperationalizationSocial exclusionSociologyInclusion (mineral)Positive economicsSocial exchange theorySocial relationContext (archaeology)Social psychologyEconomicsSocial scienceEpistemologyPsychologyGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines a framework for understanding social exclusion that is multidimensional, dynamic, multi‐leveled, and relational. Inspired by Polanyi's classification of the modes of economic inclusion, we propose that social inclusion and exclusion processes are rooted in four types of social relations: market (exchange and barter), bureaucratic (rational‐legal), associative (common interest), and communal (complex reciprocity and shared identity). Each type reflects different, but integrated processes of social exclusion and inclusion. These four types are outlined conceptually, then operationalized using data from a Canadian survey conducted in 1995 rural households. The results show the extent to which the four types of relations are used for social support, their interdependence, and their relationship to selected household characteristics and outcomes. The policy implications discussed emphasize the ways in which building capacity in all four types of relations can increase the level of social inclusion.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.208 · 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