Alberta’s Social Policy Renaissance: A Critical Policy Study of Alberta’s Social Policy Framework and 10-Year Strategy to Reduce Poverty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2013, the Government of Alberta created a social policy framework and engaged thousands of Albertans on ideas to reduce poverty; however, the government’s commitments remain unfulfilled. This article finds that the government viewed poverty as an individual issue that could be solved through responsibilization and actions that promoted economic growth. The actor(s) responsible for fulfilling the goals and commitments under the social policy framework and 10-year strategy to reduce poverty remain unclear since the government intends to transform and devolve its role as service provider, funder, and legislator to one of influencer, convener, and partner. In the decade since these engagements began, the government has experienced several changes in leadership, prompting the authors to investigate what, if anything, has changed in the government’s approach to poverty reduction since Alberta’s social policy renaissance, and what insights can be gleaned for those interested in ending poverty in the Alberta context.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".