Bibliographic record
Abstract
The onset of privatisation, deregulation, rising austerity measures, and increased tax breaks for large corporations has succeeded in removing Keynesian approaches to state governed welfare services.This has resulted in a global shift towards a workfarist rhetoric that consistently marginalizes those already on the fringes of society.Ineligible: Single Mothers Under Welfare Surveillance is an enthralling book that contextualises the real and damaging ways that surveillance practices have been formulated to regulate single mothers under neoliberalism.Maki's analysis of the linkages is a key contribution to understanding the complex relationships between welfare surveillance, social control, and neoliberalism's technological rehaul of social services.Maki places the understanding of Ontario's welfare system as a primary goal of this research, emphasizing the perspectives and experiences of those who both endure and enforce it.They do this through extensive interviews with single mothers, poverty activists, and social welfare caseworkers, who each demonstrate how they navigate within, abide by, and rebel against the system.Making up for the dearth of feminist research on the interplay of surveillance and poverty, Ineligible combines feminist political theory, moral regulation, and theories of surveillance to offer a unique insight into the cross-disciplinary connections that stretch beyond the traditional theoretical frameworks of each discipline.In doing so, Maki presents their participants' lived experiences as integral to their construction of knowledge.Thus, Maki builds a conceptual model of Ontario Works that is both accessible and a welcome addition to the controversial interaction between welfare scrutiny and assistance.By uncovering how state regulation manifests in the daily lives of Ontarian single mothers, Maki expertly demonstrates how detrimental welfare surveillance and moral regulation are to their individual experiences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".