MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195748619 · doi:10.1111/spol.12755

Translating social policy ideas: The Beveridge report, transnational diffusion, and<scp>post‐war</scp>welfare state development in Canada, Denmark, and France

2021· article· en· W3195748619 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

VenueSocial Policy and Administration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Welfare stateState (computer science)Social policyPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)WelfareWorld War IIPolitical economyPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsPublic administrationLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the history of social policy in advanced industrial societies, the 1942 Beveridge Report stands as one of the most influential government‐sponsored reports ever published. In this article, we explore how the principles and the policy proposals formulated in the report diffused to other countries and how domestic actors adapted them to their local context through policy translation processes. The social policy ideas that Beveridge put forward in his 1942 report influenced post‐war policy debates in ways that varied greatly from country to country. To illustrate this claim, we analyse the reception and policy impact of this report over time in three different welfare states: Canada, Denmark, and France. This comparison shows how Beveridge's ideas influenced policy debates in different countries through translation processes that adapted these ideas to each country's institutional and political context.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · 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