MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604592581 · doi:10.3138/cjwl.29.1.110

From the Invisible Hand to the Invisible Woman: A Gender Perspective on the Tax Policy Discourse on Social Tax Expenditures

2017· article· en· W2604592581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annick Provencher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et Droit · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)ObstacleFace (sociological concept)WelfareProfit (economics)Social WelfareTax policyWelfare statePublic economicsFor profitSociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsLawTax reformSocial sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liberal welfare states tend to use more social tax expenditures (STEs) for the provision of social welfare benefits. These benefits are incorporated into tax legislations, which are usually considered neutral and especially gender-neutral. However, they can fail to consider some characteristics of the situation that women face and their role and, therefore, have the possibility to marginalize women and be an obstacle to gender equality. By conducting a historical discourse analysis in Canada (1967–2012), this article shows that the tax policy discourse in relation to STEs is not gender-neutral. In constructing STEs, various assumptions are made about women and their role in society: they are housewives, workers, or to be eventually completely evacuated from the discourse to the profit of children and the family.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0250.048
Scholarly communication0.0140.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et DroitSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207