MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175113753 · doi:10.22329/csw.v7i2.5728

Privatization

2019· article· en· W3175113753 on OpenAlex
Judith M. Dunlop

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Work · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Argument (complex analysis)Social WelfareBusinessContext (archaeology)Private sectorPublic sectorPublic administrationExploratory researchWelfarePublic policyEconomic growthPublic relationsPublic economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceMarket economyEconomySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Privatization of social welfare services in Canada is promoted by national, provincial, regional and municipal governments through initiatives that emphasize public-private partnerships. Together with encouraging these partnerships as a privatization strategy, government also reduces public funding and replaces it with private sector contracting for social provision. An exploratory study of the Healthy Babies/ Healthy Children (HBHC) program found an increasing acceptance of privatization by service providers in Ontario. These findings illustrate the argument that government creates the context for market-based solutions. But can market-based solutions really solve social problems, and is this the intention of government social policy?

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.353 · 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