MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152188595 · doi:10.1108/01443330010789179

Asian crisis, social welfare and policy responses:Hong Kong and Korea compared

2000· article· en· W2152188595 on OpenAlexaff
Kwong‐leung Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sociology and Social Policy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringSocial policyWelfareWelfare systemSocial securityPolitical scienceSocial WelfareDevelopment economicsEconomic growthPolitical economyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Examines work investigating the impact of the crisis on social welfare policies two Asian countries — Hong Kong and Korea, and argues that these two states were not prepared for the crisis. States that Hong Kong is adopting a neoliberal approach to social welfare, contrasting this with Korea taking unprecedented steps to restructure the social security system, after its economy nearly collapsed, taking a more developmental approach to social policy. Posits that only time will tell whether Korea’s momentum of change can be sustained, while in Hong Kong social security policy will still be dictated by a neoliberal agenda in the near future.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.361 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sociology and Social PolicySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207