The Shaping of Motherhood through Social Investment in Children: Examples from Canada and Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent global shift in state policy and politics toward social inclusion and investment in human capital has raised questions among academics about whether and to what extent these developments serve to deepen and strengthen neoliberal hegemony, or represent a move beyond neoliberalism toward a potentially more progressive post-neoliberal political space with regard to social justice concerns. As many authors, including several in this volume, note, the last decade has seen a notable shift in the direction of social spending, both in southern developing and northern industrialized states. This shift is characterized by a refocusing on social investment and regulation after years of cutbacks, in part as a reaction to the real and potential social problems associated with the deregulatory approach of the 1980s and 1990s (Jenson 2001; Dobrowolsky & Jenson 2004; Porter and Craig 2004; Peck and Tickell 2002). While a focus on promoting self-responsibility, in line with neoliberalism, characterizes this reinvestment strategy, what is seemingly new, as pointed out by Mahon and Macdonald in this volume, is the provision of state resources to empower citizens and provide them with more tools and opportunities to be successfully integrated into the market economy and become self-sufficient and self- responsible citizens (see also Porter and Craig 2004: 388). Our concern in this chapter is to elucidate the ways in which processes of post-neoliberalization that surround the education of, and investment in, children interact with the regulation and experience of motherhood in two quite different local contexts in Canada and in Mexico. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".