MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300429040 · doi:10.46692/9781847423061.015

Conclusion: a generation of change, a lifetime of difference?

2009· other· en· W4300429040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Realism in Sociology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The big picture It is undeniable that there has been huge change in policy and underlying social and economic life since the 1970s and that our lives today are different in many ways. Clearly, 1979 stands out as a point when a momentous shift in British politics and in its social policy and welfare state occurred. Thirty years on and facing the fourth economic recession since the Second World War, we have tried in this book to look across the period, to put it in context and to measure some of the changes that have occurred in social policy. So much has been said about the ‘isms’ of Thatcher and Blair and so much emphasised about the differences between Old and New Labour that this focus on the rhetoric and ideology of change has resulted in little detailed analysis of what has actually changed and for whom. Of course, there have been historical descriptions of social policy change – the broad changes that we outlined in Chapter Two give but a whistlestop tour of ground that has been covered in well-written accounts by Timmins (2001), Glennerster (2000) and others. We have aimed to bring history up to date – to the end of 2008 at the time of writing. However, our main aim has not been solely an historical one, but one that joins the historical overview of policy change with the detail of what has happened to the rules of social policy, and of taxes and benefits in particular – of what has been said and what has been done. This approach has meant turning to the rules of policy rather than just the aims. Rather unfashionably, we have focused on a reconstruction of the rules of welfare rather than a deconstruction of its discourse. More importantly, we have then used those rules to compare analytically the outcomes of policy at the turning points of 1979, 1997 and 2008. This approach has enabled us to get beneath the ideology and rhetoric and to document what has changed and with what effect. But a focus on rules potentially misses the bigger picture and much of the changes to this bigger picture have been dominated by changing economics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.026
Scholarly communication0.0230.033
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCritical Realism in SociologyFrench-language works237,207