Neoliberalism’s Agnosticism: Domestic and Immigration Policies and the Model Family in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The struggle for the recognition of increasingly diverse forms of intimate life has coincided with the adoption and consolidation of neoliberal forms of governance in Canada and the United States, and indeed, in virtually all Western societies. But does this correlation reveal causation? It is entirely possible to read Canada’s extension of most marriage rights to common-law relationships in 2000 and the recognition of the marriage rights of same-sex partners in 2005 as, simultaneously, a post-neoliberal shift toward greater social inclusion, the consolidation of neoliberal governance through the extension of private obligations of support to a wider array of citizens, and the successful struggle for the extension of human rights to excluded groups of citizens. It is also possible to read the passage of the U.S. federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), at the other pole of legislative innovation around relationship recognition, as a conservative (as in nonliberal) defense of the institution of marriage; a neoliberal impulse to limit public outlays by restricting the range of legitimated relationships through which Americans might claim public entitlements; and the successful struggle to resist the extension of human rights to excluded groups of citizens.1 If we are to make a positive claim about the relationship between these diverse developments and neoliberalism, it would be to observe neoliberalism’s incomplete explanatory force and its malleability to the political contexts of distinct nation-states (Clarke 2000: 205).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".