Undeserving Welfare Recipients from the State’s Point of View in Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the adoption of the “Act to combat poverty and social exclusion” (Act 112) in 2002, Québec had to present three action plans “[…] to guide the Government and Québec society as a whole toward a process of planning and implementing actions to combat poverty and counter social exclusion and strive toward a poverty-free society” (Québec 2002, 2). To achieve this important goal, one of the state’s strategies has been to reinforce already existing employment incentives for people considered “fit” for work and promote a more flexible workforce. This article questions the “worth” of unemployed welfare recipients “without limited capacity” for employment in the current neoliberal labour market. This research demonstrates that their “value” is directly linked to their ability to work and productivity in the state discourse on the fight against poverty, influencing thereafter the popular understanding of this polysemous socioeconomic phenomenon. Mainly by analyzing the three action plans to combat poverty and interviewing informants enrolled in employment incentives in the area of Chaudière-Appalaches, this project also underlines how the workfare model collaborates in the reproduction of poverty and the proliferation of precarious jobs in our globalized economies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".