The health implications of working for welfare benefits: the experiences of single mothers in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issue addressed: Alberta, a province of Canada, recently instituted mandatory activities for all 'employable' welfare recipients. Single mothers, who comprise the majority of recipients, are most affected by this policy as they must combine participation in Welfare-to-Work activities with caring for their family, all without the support of a partner. Methods: Through critical ethnography, this study explored the day-to-day life experiences of single mothers participating in Welfare-to-Work activities and examined how these experiences were influenced by broad social and economic policies. The influence of these experiences on health was then considered. Results: First and foremost, mothers indicated that their children and families were their primary concern. Mothers often relied on social support networks to survive until the next benefit payment. The inadequacy of benefits meant that mothers had to make choices regarding what was provided and what was foregone. These decisions often had a negative impact on their health. Conclusions: Findings suggest that the government overlooked the caregiving role of single mothers on welfare. It seemed that the government only viewed those who were contributing economically through the labour market as productive members of society. Welfare-to-Work policies were not 'healthy public policies' as they often compromised determinants of health. The policies did not empower women, but rather subordinated them. So what?: If the aim of health promotion is to address the health of marginalised populations, more emphasis must be placed on alleviating oppressive conditions that hamper their ability to achieve optimal health. Welfare policies must be held accountable for the impact they have on health. (author abstract)
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".