Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization and the Future of the Welfare State. Edited by Miguel Glatzer and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005. 288p. $29.95. Is globalization a causal factor in the development of welfare states? If globalization does matter, does it constrain or facilitate the creation and expansion of social programs? If globalization has a positive effect on welfare states, which conditions prevent or enable increases in social spending and broadening of coverage? These questions are the focus of Miguel Glatzer and Dietrich Rueschemeyer's edited volume. These editors, who coauthored the introduction and conclusion, carefully selected studies by a group of scholars who are all both experts in the study of welfare states and masters of a specific geographic region or country. The studies include Western Europe (by John D. Stephens), Eastern Europe (Mitchell A. Orenstein and Martine R. Haas), Southern Europe (Miguel Glatzer), Latin America (Evelyne Huber), Russia (Linda J. Cook), and South Korea (Ho Keun Song and Kyung Zoon Hong). In addition to these regional or country case studies, there is a variable-oriented chapter by Geoffrey Garrett and David Nickerson that explores correlations between globalization and social spending across a large number of countries. Since they provided the authors with a limited common framework, giving them sufficient room to explore their own ideas, the editors achieved a good balance between coherence and diversity. All the chapters are of high quality, and each provides a particular insight into the relationship between globalization and welfare state development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".