MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391885142 · doi:10.32920/25233556

The Evolution of the Ontario Poverty Reduction Strategy

2024· preprint· en· W4391885142 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Arbaji

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPoverty reductionConceptualizationContext (archaeology)Social exclusionReduction (mathematics)Culture of povertyDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthEconomicsBasic needsGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario released its first Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) in 2008. This paper will map out the development and evolution of the Ontario PRS in the context of the emergence of poverty reduction strategies more broadly. The neoliberal context out of which these poverty reduction strategies emerged will be explored. The conceptualization of poverty based on social inclusion and exclusion will also be discussed within the neoliberal era.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Sciences and Governance→French-language works237,207→