Striking Balance: Social Assistance Policy, the Public Trust, and the Public Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article argues that while the provision of social assistance is an accepted reality in Canada it is supported by a multiplicity of contrary arguments in the context of scarce resources. As such, it must be the prerogative of elected leaders to balance the direction and resourcing of its provision with competing policy goals. However, this does not imply a political carte blanche with regard to policy development. In addition to any judicial check on policy-making, public servants have an obligation to ensure that the elected decision-makers are adequately informed about the rights issues involved as well as the various policy options available. Moreover, public servants must ensure that all normative and potentially rights abrogating decisions are made openly, transparently and subject to the scrutiny of a public that has the tools and means to understand and analyse information and to express itself accordingly in the political arena.
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 | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".