Making care count: troubling neoliberal policy frameworks in the childcare and waste management policy areas of Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the advent of the political influence of neoliberalism in Canada in the 1970s, the dominant norms of neoliberal policymaking have determined the parameters of political possibility in both provincial and federal policy circles. This framework has compromised policy areas that involve the direct provision of care work due to the incompatibility—both theoretical and practical—of theories analyzing care and neoliberalism. This thesis analyses the universality, the reliance on care work and caring labour, and the longstanding challenges in two policy areas in Newfoundland and Labrador: childcare, and waste management, seeking to identify the utility of a care framework in proposing policy alternatives for both areas. In employing a care framework as an intervention into the policy areas and their neoliberal domination, this study assesses the practicality of care as a policy formulation and implementation framework, determining that meaningful policy change as it pertains to childcare or waste management cannot occur through an adherence to the norms of neoliberalism that currently characterize policy development in both areas. Doing so, this work illuminates the paramount importance of caring labour to society, arguing that an ignorance of this labour in written, regulated policy will continue to prevent significant societal advancement.
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 | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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".