Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concept of gendered social policy regimes is developed to examine how the gendered nature of social policy in Canada has shifted over time. Gender is seen within a web of relations including relations of race and Indigeneity and the gendered nature of social policy as connected to prevailing economic regimes, social reproduction activities, nation-building projects, as well as to movements for social reform. Gender norms and ideologies and the legal framework are also important. Three gendered social policy regimes are identified. First, in the early twentieth-century regime, approaches to women’s welfare interacted with colonialism and nation-building projects and were reflected in mothers’ allowances, a key social program of this period. Second, the post–World War II regime was characterized by not only welfare-state expansion, but also exclusions and hierarchies. It was underpinned by an increasingly contested male-breadwinner norm. Third, in the neoliberal regime, women have been viewed as workers, households sustained by multiple earners and social reproduction both commodified and downloaded to households. Women have achieved greater formal equality, but this has been undermined by social policy rollbacks and growing structural inequalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".