From the Invisible Hand to the Invisible Woman: A Gender Perspective on the Tax Policy Discourse on Social Tax Expenditures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les États-providence de tendance libérale utilisent davantage les dépenses fiscales sociales (DFS) pour le paiement de prestations de sécurité sociale. Ces prestations sont intégrées aux lois fiscales, habituellement considérées comme neutres et non genrées. Cependant, elles peuvent négliger certaines caractéristiques propres aux situations que vivent les femmes et à leurs ro^les et, par conséquent, marginaliser les femmes et constituer un obstacle à l'égalité hommes-femmes. En proposant une analyse du discours historique au Canada (1967–2012), l'auteure du présent article démontre que le discours sur la politique fiscale relativement aux DFS n'est pas neutre sur le plan du genre. Les dépenses fiscales sociales sont fondées sur différentes hypothèses relatives aux femmes et à leur ro^le dans la société: on présume qu'elles sont ménagères, travailleuses, ou encore on finit par les évacuer complètement du discours au profit des enfants et de la famille. Abstract: Liberal welfare states tend to use more social tax expenditures (STEs) for the provision of social welfare benefits. These benefits are incorporated into tax legislations, which are usually considered neutral and especially gender-neutral. However, they can fail to consider some characteristics of the situation that women face and their role and, therefore, have the possibility to marginalize women and be an obstacle to gender equality. By conducting a historical discourse analysis in Canada (1967–2012), this article shows that the tax policy discourse in relation to STEs is not gender-neutral. In constructing STEs, various assumptions are made about women and their role in society: they are housewives, workers, or to be eventually completely evacuated from the discourse to the profit of children and the family.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".