MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132161213 · doi:10.1177/0010414005281935

The Material Consequences of Welfare States

2006· article· en· W2132161213 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lyle Scruggs, James P. Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Political Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerosityPovertyUnemploymentWelfare stateEconomicsWelfareSocial insuranceQuarter (Canadian coin)State (computer science)Development economicsLabour economicsEconomic growthPolitical sciencePoliticsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several recent studies have focused attention on the relationship between welfare states and poverty, looking primarily at relative poverty and employing concepts of welfare state generosity that are problematic. This has made it difficult to evaluate claims that equality has come at the expense of economic growth. In this article, the authors examine more directly the relationship between welfare state generosity in three social insurance programs— unemployment, sickness, and pensions—and poverty levels in advanced industrial democracies in the past quarter of the 20th century. The results strongly suggest that more generous entitlements to key social insurance programs are associated not only with lower relative poverty but also with lower absolute poverty. This supports the contention that promoting relative economic equality can improve the absolute material well-being of the poor. However, no evidence suggests that relatively more generous unemployment benefits systematically reduce poverty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations135
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative Political StudiesSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207