Freedom to Eat: The Public Policy of City-Level Food Aid in Depression-Era Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Great Depression, cities across Canada debated food relief policies. Although the federal and provincial governments provided financial support for unemployment relief, it was civic authorities that most shaped how relief worked. Many of these meetings were heated: aldermen, commissioners, and public attendees worried about the health of recipients, the morality and ethics of relief, the tax burden of property owners, and the sustainability of relief as the Depression lagged on. For the first years of the Depression, the debates were rather pragmatic in their focus, but, as the Depression wore on, city councils became concerned about the long-term implications of poverty relief policy. In Ontario, city councils debated the extent to which the poor should be managed, what work obligations recipients had, what quality of food should they be provided, and whether such relief was a humanitarian endeavour or a means to stimulate the economy through consumption. These city-level debates thus had profound political power as they shaped public discourse on the rights of the poor and the responsibilities of governments for public welfare. Relief was understood as an obligation rooted in the concept of Christian charity, but such relief was to be provided only to those in absolute destitution, was to be kept as minimal as possible and only for the “necessities of life,” and those on relief were to be closely monitored. This philosophy of poverty relief reflected the progressivism of its time, both in its liberal rejection of absolute laissez faire and its elitist paternalism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".