Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family allowances are an essential component of a comprehensive social security system, for by eliminating the necessity to provide for varying numbers of dependents, they would make such programmes as unemployment insurance, sickness benefits, workmen's compensation etc. considerably more efficient and more effective. Provisions for dependent children within the scope of other social security programmes have hitherto been marginal, if they existed at all. Under such arrangements the real and pressing needs of children have only too often been sadly neglected. Furthermore, wages do not take account of family needs, and a bachelor and a father of three growing children are paid the same if they do the same kind of job. "Equal pay for equal work" may be justified in the interest of the present industrial wage-system but it certainly counters the social interest of children. As children share the material circumstances of their families, the accident of birth still retains an importance and significance as to the future of a child which do not agree with the aims of a democratic society to provide equal opportunity for all. The Marsh Report (1943) spoke of the necessity to provide a "social minimum" for children in the same way as the Canada Pension Plan sets a floor below which no-one over the age of sixty in the case of women, and no-one over the age of sixty-five in the case of men, is allowed to fall. What we could do for the aged we should do for children, for children are the most vulnerable and the most precious group of a nation. The future of the children is the future of Canada. A Ministry of Family Affairs is a much needed institution to look after the interests of children and their families. Canadian social policy will have to include a vigorous family policy in order to further the well-being of children. This thesis is an attempt in this direction.
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 | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".