REVIVING AUSTERITY:POPULIST SUPPORT FOR UNPOPULAR ECONOMICS IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critics of austerity argue that it is a failure, yet there remains a high level of political and public support for it as economic policy. Using evidence from Alberta, Canada, a neoliberal democratic economy, this paper aims to explain the apparent paradox of the popularity of austerity by disaggregating the publics into the government, the opposition party, organized interests, public sector employees, and the Public. We find that the organizations opposed to austerity measures often purport to advocate in the public interest but have a conflict of interest and ethical dilemma as the Public believes that there is a time for austerity, just as there is a time for consumption. Moreover, governments that implement “unpopular” austerity measures while maintaining popular political supportmay simply be reflecting public sentiment about the appropriateness of austerity for that time. Reviving austerity is relevant to policy-makers who need to manage economic policy in periods of sustained fiscal crises and cycle shocks, as has been the casein Alberta and many other jurisdictions in the past decade.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".