Realising our (neoliberal) potential? A critical discourse analysis of the Poverty Reduction Strategy in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) launched in Ontario, Canada’s most populous province. Using corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis, we explore the dominant discourses that emerge in a genre chain produced by the Government of Ontario, including the initial 2008 PRS, annual reports and the 2014–2019 recontextualised PRS. Six key discourses surfaced: social exclusion, social inclusion, economic benefit or social investment, expert knowledge, community engagement and requisites for the PRS’ success – typically involving investments from the federal government and a favourable economic climate. No discourse of human rights, or of the rights to food, housing and an adequate standard of living is present in the PRS texts, absolving the government from its responsibility to ensure these rights. Without the accountability mechanisms attached to a rights-based approach, the PRS has little chance of ‘breaking the cycle’ of poverty, and will not likely ‘realise its potential’ to do so.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".