Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume explores the politics and history of social policy language and concepts. A country associated with both universalism and a unique Republican political culture, France is an interesting case for the analysis of social policy language because of the contested nature of the very concepts that help define what social policy is about. Another reason to turn attention to France is the influence of this country on international policy debates, within the European Union and beyond. For instance, the concept of social exclusion, which has now entered the international policy vocabulary, first emerged as a ‘keyword’ in France, before it was diffused through international policy networks (Beland, 2007). Thus, the French case is fascinating in part because it allows us to understand the specific nature of national policy debates while acknowledging their international dimension. This chapter is comprised of four main sections. The first two sections respectively explore the development of the concepts of sécurité sociale and État-providence in France. These sections each trace the history of one of these concepts, before explaining why is has become politically contentious. The last two main sections delve into the French Republican political culture and discourse to explore the ideas of solidarity and social exclusion, respectively. The chapter’s Conclusion stresses some basic lessons drawn from the French case for the broad analysis of social policy language and concepts. Social security Popularised in the United States during and after the New Deal, the term ‘social security’ ( Sécurité sociale ) became an enduring ‘keyword’ (Williams, 1976; see also Fraser and Gordon, 1994) in France's social policy language in the aftermath of the 1944 Liberation. At the time, the 1942 Beveridge report ( Social Insurance and Allied Services ) motivated what became a failed attempt to unify the fragmented social insurance system that had emerged in France during the first decades of the 20th century (for example Hatzfeld, 1971; Rosanvallon, 1981; Baldwin, 1990; Palier and Bonoli, 1995). In France, the term ‘social security’ typically refers to the social insurance schemes central to the French social policy system. In a textbook on ‘social security’, for instance, Georges Dorion and Andre Guionnet (1995: 14) enumerate the key components of that fragmented system: health insurance, parental leave, disability insurance, death insurance, workers’ compensation, old-age insurance and family benefits.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".