MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arms and the Man: World War I and the Rise of the Welfare State

2004· article· en· W3122367039 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueKyklos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Policies and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacetimeEconomicsWelfare statePublic goodSuffrageState (computer science)DemocracyWelfareGlobalizationGovernment (linguistics)Political economyMarket economyPolitical scienceNeoclassical economicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Why did peacetime government shares of total spending double in a number of Western economies between 1910 and 1938? The widely separated dates for the introduction of universal manhood suffrage and the evidence of a rise in protection during the inter‐war period indicate that neither democracy nor globalization can explain this development. This paper reexamines two other explanations, namely, (1) a shift in the demand for public goods and (2) a war‐induced willingness to share with one's fellow citizens. By introducing into Schelling's (1978) Multi‐Person Dilemma a learning game whose payoffs change endogenously, we provide theoretical explanations for this transformation. We then test the resulting propositions with data on public spending as a share of GNP for the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany and Denmark, from the 1870s to the 1930s. In each case, we find no unit root but a break in trend, a result shown to favor explanation (2) over (1).

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.172 · 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