Conclusion: what is the best way forward for the citizen’s stake?’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction As the principle of a citizen's stake becomes tentatively established in British social policy, and attracts attention from around the world, deep and searching questions inevitably arise. Three sets of questions may be distinguished: 1) The underlying social ideal . What broader social vision is the citizen’s stake connected with? The basic idea of the citizen's stake is compatible with a wide range of conceptions of the good society. This is why it draws support across the political spectrum. But once the principle is established, further development of policies like the Child Trust Fund (CTF) requires a clear view of the specific conception of the good society we wish to advance. 2) International relevance . It has been argued that while asset-based approaches might have some relevance for nations of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ capitalism (such as Britain, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia), they have little relevance to continental Europe or other parts of the world. Is this fair comment? 3) Immediate actions . What immediate actions should policy makers take to shape future development of the CTF in particular and the citizen's stake more broadly? We now look at each of these questions in turn. Underlying social ideal What kind of society is the CTF meant to help create? We begin by locating the CTF in relation to a currently influential conception of the good society centred on a social investment paradigm . We then outline three further perspectives that offer challenges or modifications to this paradigm: libertarianism ; post-productivism (which we see as related to civic republicanism ); and egalitarianism . The social investment paradigm A major theme in centre-left thinking in recent years is that the state should seek not merely to assist those in need, but, where possible, to help people build their capacities so that they can be more selfsupporting. Spending to this end is not simply welfare, but a kind of investment. In Britain, this theme came into mainstream discussion with the report of the Commission on Social Justice in 1994, stressing the need to create an ‘Investor's Britain’ as opposed to a mere ‘Leveller’s Britain’ based on income redistribution (Commission on Social Justice, 1994).
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.009 |
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".