Corporatist welfare states: the residue of the past, or the wave of the future?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the nation grew objectively richer, it felt subjectively poorer. Why? If government is “poor,” if it is unable to “afford” things, that is because of its inability to unlock resources from entrenched claimants and reallocate them for new needs. It is not poor; it is paralyzed. It is not malnourished; it is maladaptive. It is trapped in its own past, held there like Gulliver in Lilliput by a thousand ancient commitments and ten thousand committed clients … Not only are programs virtually impossible to kill, but once put in place they are also hard to change. Every wrinkle in the law, every grant formula and tax loophole, produces a winner who resists subsequent reform, unless “reform” happens to mean more money or benefits for the lobbies concerned. Jonathan Rauch, commenting on the USA in his book Government's End (1994). Today, there are three Frances. First, there are those whose jobs are guaranteed for life and who don't do much of anything … let alone create any wealth for the nation. These are the functionaries, who have replaced the aristocracy of years gone by. Naturally, they are as frightened as the nobles must have been on the eve … of August 4 [1789, when the nobility's privileges were abolished]. Then, there are those who have a job, who work, who create wealth. Finally, there are all those who are “excluded” from everything, the unemployed, the illiterate, foreigners, those on welfare, those forgotten and despised. Thierry Desjardins, La décomposition française (2002).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".