Neoliberal Frontiers and Economic Insecurity: Is Basic Income a Solution?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australia and New Zealand have similarities and differences in regard to their cultural, social, and economic makeup. Both countries share a colonial past, dispossession of the indigenous populations, and common features regarding the model of social protection that developed during the nineteenth and twentieth century. In comparative welfare state studies the two countries are often grouped together, along with the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, in what some scholars refer to as a “liberal welfare state” model. This welfare state model describes the strong preference for market-based solutions in meeting social needs (commodification), a residual safety net, and a punitive approach to poverty (Esping-Andersen, 2000; Grover & Piggott, 2013). Other scholars have suggested that the characterization of Australia and New Zealand as liberal welfare states downplays some unique characteristics and that it is more accurate to talk about Australia and New Zealand as having developed a “wage earner’s welfare state” (Castles, 1984). The notion of a wage earner’s welfare state emphasizes the central role given to high minimum wages in redistribution, a generous social wage, and a robust system of industrial rights. These aspects were supported by the substantial use of protective tariffs to bolster wage levels in manufacturing, urban service, and a strong concern with the regulation of labor supply through controlled migration (Castles, 1994).
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".