Welfare state structures and the structure of welfare state support: Attitudes towards social spending in Canada, 1993–2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The comparative welfare state literature contends that different welfare state structures engender different structures of welfare state support. The argument is that social welfare regimes that distribute their benefits selectively tend to produce patterns of support graduated by the likelihood of accessing these selective (or ‘targeted’) social benefits, especially as indexed by social class. Where benefits are universally distributed, by contrast, support is expected to be more consensual and to cut across class and related cleavages. This article empirically tests this ‘interest‐based’ account and extends it by adding a ‘values‐based’ component. The authors find that the impact of both interests and values – specifically, orientations toward the capitalist system – on welfare state support is conditional on welfare state structures. It is argued that these results help to resolve a paradox in the comparative welfare state literature: strong evidence for differentiation in social welfare support by program type, but weak evidence for differentiation in class effects by program type. Data for the analysis come from the Canadian Election Studies of 1993, 1997 and 2000.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".