MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889813261 · doi:10.26686/pq.v9i2.4449

Forward liability and welfare reform in New Zealand

2013· article· en· W2889813261 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Issues and Policies
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreasuryLiabilityWelfareEconomicsWelfare reformGovernment (linguistics)Investment (military)Work (physics)Public economicsBusinessFinancePolitical scienceMarket economyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In November 2012, Gabriel Makhlouf, the secretary to the Treasury, gave a wide-ranging speech to the Trans- Tasman Business Circle which discussed, among other things, recent reforms in the welfare system. He described the new ‘investment approach’ as a significant change to the New Zealand welfare system, which he suggested would effectively get people back into work, reduce poverty and increase living standards. The overarching welfare reforms announced and being implemented by the current government are in large part constructed around this investment approach, which provides a central policy narrative to the reforms. The centrality of the investment approach is expressed via the operational use of a measure of what is variously termed ‘forward liability’, ‘future liability’ or ‘long-term liability’ of the welfare system as the key performance management tool for Work and Income. Forward liability (the term exclusively used here) is basically the total current and future fiscal costs of welfare, appropriately discounted.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.309 · 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