MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391612066 · doi:10.1080/13876988.2024.2304822

National Intentions and Local Welfare Markets: A Comparative Analysis of Market Tools to Support Older Adults in France and Québec

2024· article· en· W4391612066 on OpenAlex
Patrik Marier, Loïc Trabut, Alexandra Garabige

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsWelfareEconomicsBusinessEconomic geographyMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This homecare policy study compares the creation and enactment of a managed market (Quebec) and a consumer-driven market (France) in urban and rural areas. Market tools are ill-suited for rural environments, as policymakers have an urban setting in mind. Consequently, market tool preferences have modest relevance in rural settings, with implementers facing multiple hurdles to develop and sustain markets. This comparative study demonstrates that the deployment of market tools actually results in heightened pressures on not-for-profit organizations to fill a growing number of service gaps and to adapt market instruments and mechanisms.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.395 · 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