Child support and income inequalities: a cross-continental comparison from welfare design to judicial implementation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article analyses why and how child support policy contributes to income inequalities as well as to cross-national variation. It uses an in-depth comparison between France and Quebec (Canada) and drives on a multi-method empirical design to assess how this policy has been designed within each welfare state regime from the 1970s to the 2020s and how family lawyers and lower court judges implement it. It shows that national conceptions of solidarity and justice differ, along with the differences between those two legal systems, leading to cross-national variations regarding child support policy. In Quebec, the neo-liberal wave and the powerful feminist movement have converged to ensure that fathers are made to face up to their financial responsibilities towards their children, which has positive effects on the wealthiest and middle-class families. In contrast, in France, the feminist movement has been less influential while the long-standing family policy has favoured state protection towards lone mothers. As a result, the financial risks involved in separation are (partially) compensated by a state system of redistribution, rather than by private remedies, which lead the French system to be more effective for lower-class families. As a result, national context still matters a lot in the part institutional arrangements and professional practices play in income inequalities after parental separations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it