Neoliberalism and Violence against Women: Can Retrenchment Convergence Explain the Path of Provincial Anti-Violence Policy, 1985–2005?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.This article examines the impact of neoliberalism on provincial policies aimed at addressing the problem of violence against women during a period (1985–2005) when welfare state retrenchment convergence has been documented both provincially and in a variety of Western democracies, including in Canada. Using measurements of both aggregate government expenditures and qualitative evaluations of anti-violence policy progression during this time frame, my analysis questions the existence of welfare state convergence in both Ontario and British Columbia. Instead, it demonstrates evidence of pronounced anti-violence policy divergence in both cases, which is better explained by a partisan theory of public policy framework. Résumé.Cet article examine l'incidence du néolibéralisme sur les politiques provinciales visant à enrayer le problème de la violence faite aux femmes au cours de la période 1985–2005. Cette période coïncide avec la remise en question de l'État providence, phénomène largement documenté à l'échelle provinciale comme dans diverses démocraties occidentales, incluant le Canada. En mesurant les dépenses publiques d'agrégat ainsi que les évaluations qualitatives de l'évolution des politiques contre la violence durant cette période, mon analyse remet en question l'existence d'une convergence dans l'évolution de l'État providence en Ontario et en Colombie-Britannique. En fait, elle démontre plutôt l'évidence d'une divergence prononcée de politiques dans les deux cas, qui peut être mieux expliquée par une théorie “partisane” des politiques publiques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".