MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139466183 · doi:10.1111/spol.12718

Social policy in the face of a global pandemic: Policy responses to the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 crisis

2021· article· en· W3139466183 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Béland, Béa Cantillon, Rod Hick, Amílcar Moreira

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Policy and Administration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Face (sociological concept)Political scienceSocial policyFinancial crisisPolitical economyDevelopment economicsSociologyEconomicsSocial scienceKeynesian economicsLawMedicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How have welfare states responded to the coronavirus pandemic? In this introductory article, we provide a synopsis of papers that comprise this special issue on social policy responses to COVID-19, an overview of some of the key questions they raise, and some provisional answers to these questions. Our conclusions are threefold: first, these social policy responses, while entailing new developments in many countries, nonetheless reflect, at least in part, existing national policy legacies. Second, these responses can be understood as a form of "emergency Keynesianism," which is characterized by the massive use of deficit spending during economic crises, with the aim of to supporting rather than challenging core capitalist institutions. Third, there are clear differences in terms of the nature of the reforms enacted during the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis as compared to reforms enacted as a response to the 2008 financial crisis.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations172
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Policy and AdministrationSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207