Bibliographic record
Abstract
A central concern of the New Labour government was to modernise the welfare state. Welfare reform featured heavily in the 1997 Manifesto, and it has been a major feature of government policy ever since (for example, Powell, 1999; Burden et al, 2000; Timmins, 2001). The main aim of this text is to evaluate the welfare policies of the first term of the New Labour government (1997-2001). It is concerned with evaluation of policy rather than evaluation for policy. The government has invested heavily in the latter, commissioning a significant amount of research with the main aim of improving the policy process. For example, it has set up many area-based policies such as Action Zones in education, health and employment. Changes in these zones are evaluated in order to ‘mainstream’ any improvements to the national level. Similarly, policies such as the New Deal have been subject to evaluation (see Chapters Five and Ten of this volume). Moreover, it has encouraged evidence-based approaches in health, education and social care in order to determine ‘what works’ (for example, Davies et al, 2000). However, this text is concerned with evaluation of policy. There is a rapidly growing literature that examines the changes that New Labour has made to social policy. Some of this literature is implicitly evaluative in that it gives a broadly positive (for example, Glennerster, 1999) or negative (for example, Hay, 1999; Burden et al, 2000; Critical Social Policy, 2001) verdict on the changes. However, there is much less material that is explicitly evaluative in that it gives a clear verdict (for example, Glennerster, 2001;Toynbee and Walker, 2001; Boyne et al, 2003: forthcoming).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".