MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968989041 · doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1648696

(Mis)taking social responsibility? Implementing welfare state reform by private and non-profit organizations

2019· article· en· W2968989041 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

VenuePublic Management Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyAgency (philosophy)Welfare reformPublic administrationPublic relationsSocial WelfareState (computer science)Welfare stateCognitionMoral agencyWelfarePolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article relates institutional theory to the concept of organizational legitimacy with cognitive, moral, and pragmatic dimensions, to analyse how a Dutch national policy reform – aimed at expanding the social responsibility for sick leave and disability toward non-state organizations – is understood and enacted locally. Based on interviews in 52 organizations, the study highlights that implementing welfare state reform is predominantly based on pragmatic reasoning, and justified by specific moral and cognitive interpretations. The findings reveal that implementing reform is active institutional work by – paradoxically – restricted local agency, with disciplinary effects on a narrow range of actors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.316 · 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