MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W62883154

Social Policy in Canada. (Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus)

2003· article· en· W62883154 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ken Collier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial policyPopulationWelfare stateSociologyWelfareEquity (law)Social WelfarePoliticsEconomicsPublic administrationPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ernie Lightman, Social Policy in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2003, 294 pp. For too long, social policy had to cope with sub-status as an aspect of economic policy or public policy. Social policy deals with the arrangements human beings invent in their several relationships. Ernie Lightman shows that policies of the economy, politics, the family, education, employment, gender, welfare and so forth are ALL social policies. Lightman believes there is much room for manoeuvring and incremental progress within existing social structures and that he desires a welfare society reliant on the state (preface), so we know he is likely liberal-social democrat in approach. His discipline is economics, though this is not a book about welfare economics. It examines programs, services and their resources as well as their costs and financing. He looks at taxing to fund social welfare and shows the relationship with private and volunteer services. Lightman gives clear, edifying examples. The richest quintile of the Canadian population earned $17.60 for every $1 earned by the lowest quintile in 1998. The follow-up is presented as information, not opinion. The income gap between top and bottom widened between 1989 and 1998 from a ratio of 7.2 to 8.6 (income after all taxes and government transfers.) The discussion of gini coefficients is both palatable and understandable. The few mathematical equations are stated in words. This book grapples successfully with difficult and sometimes ambiguous concepts -- equity vs. equality, fairness, justice, consensus, and the integrative function of welfare policy. Residual and institutional approaches to social welfare deserve a judgement call. Which is better? Residualism is an ideology. Responsibility resides with the person and the family (thus the name.) Lightman' s recognition of the need for state intervention to effect any successful social policy leads directly to the institutional approach. Social policy and public welfare are institutions of a society with an effective citizenry and community life (thus that name.) Lightman reviews the social welfare privatization fiascoes of recent decades. The chapter on allocating benefits is especially valuable for social policy veterans and the beginning student. Lightman, as an economist, might have made more of the discussion of the insurance principle. Benefits as citizen right is more equitable than benefits arising from paying premiums for insurance, but Lightman does not comment on the portion of the population that is not covered by social insurance. Insurance schemes are more expensive and complicated, usually have to allow for profit to be skimmed off, and are subject to manipulated actuarial calculations upon which they are based. Lightman begins his short history of Guaranteed Annual Income in the USA with the writings of Milton Friedman, the right-wing ideologue credited with bringing down the welfare state, giving economic advice to Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (as well as others) and fueling the anti-statist political and economic drives of the 1970s to present. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.017
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.030

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of SociologySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207