Intergovernmental relations, social policy and federal transfers after Romanow
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article explores the new and old intergovernmental dynamics around federal transfers to the provinces for health and social policy spending in the aftermath of the Romanow report and the decision to split the Canada Health and Social Transfer (chst) into its two component parts. Though the provinces have agreed to the split, the federal government undertook the allocation of the transfer to the new Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer unilaterally. At the same time, the federal government has simultaneously been increasing its own social spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction in recent years. In response, the provinces have been taking an increasingly hard line towards Ottawa's unilateral actions, as demonstrated by the creation of the Council of the Federation and its focus on the so‐called fiscal imbalance in the federation. These dynamics make the intergovernmental commitment to collaborative federalism ring somewhat hollow. The article argues that the inability of both orders of government to take collaborative federalism and policy interdependence seriously poses significant threats not only to the health of the federation but also to efforts to create healthy public policy. Sommaire: Le présent article porte sur les nouvelles et anciennes dynamiques inter‐gouvemementales concernant les transferts accordés par le fédéral aux provinces pour le financement des politiques sociales et de santé, qui ont découlé du Rapport Romanow et de la décision de scinder le Transfert canadien en matiè‐e de santé et de programmes sociaux (TCSPS) en deux composantes distinctes. Quoique les provinces aient accepté la scission, le gouvernement fédéral a entrepris de procéder unilatérale‐ment à l'affectation des paiements aux nouveaux Transfert canadien en matière de santé et Transfert canadien en matière de programmes sociaux. Simultanément, ces dernières années, le gouvernement fédéral a accru ses propres dépenses sociales dans des domaines de juridiction provinciale. Face à cela, les provinces ont adopté une position de plus en plus intransigeante à l'egard des initiatives unilatéralcs d'Ottawa comme le démontrent la céeation du Conseil de la fédération et sa concentration sur le soi‐disant déséquilibre financier au sein de la fédération. Cette dynarnique fait que l'engagement intergouvernemental envers le fédéralisme de collaboration sonne plutôt vide. L'article soutient que L'inaptitude des deux ordres de gouverncment a prendre au serieux le fédéralisme de collaboration et L'interdépendance politique représente une forte menace, non seulement pour la santé de la fédération, mais aussi pour les efforts visant à créer un politique publique saine.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it