MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2978809609

The Swedish Conservative Party and the Welfare State. Institutional Change and Adapting Preferences

2006· article· en· W2978809609 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anders Lindbom

Bibliographic record

VenueArbetsrapport · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityIdeologyRhetoricWelfareWelfare stateState (computer science)Political economyPolitical scienceEconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Law and economicsPublic economicsMarket economyPoliticsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper argues that the Swedish ‘neo-liberal’ party (Moderaterna) has adapted its policies because of the popularity of the ‘universal’ Swedish welfare state. The party has come to accept that the modern welfare state is irreplaceable. We furthermore argue that the party’s moderate electoral platform in 2006 is earnest. In the “short run” the party can only hope to achieve incremental changes and it recognises this. Simultaneously however, the party in the “long run” wants to gradually change society. Over time the party in its rhetoric and ideological statements has emphasised the short and the long run differently. These differences between the ‘neo-liberal’ 1980s and 2006 should not conceal that the mechanism of welfare popularity largely remains the same. The party’s actual policy proposals tend to suggest incremental changes only in both periods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArbetsrapport→Same topicElectoral Systems and Political Participation→French-language works237,207→