Social cohesion, social capital and social exclusion: A cross cultural comparison
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in the concept of social cohesion has waxed and waned since Durkheim's foundation studies at the end of the 19th century, with the greatest interest being in times of fundamental economic, social and political change. The term is used in at least two different ways: firstly, in a policy context, to indicate the aims of, and rationale for, certain public policy actions; and secondly, as an analytical construct to explain social, political and sometimes economic changes. This article focuses on the first of these and traces the recent usage of social cohesion, spanning its take-up and influence within the Canadian policy environment, through to its usage (or otherwise) across liberal welfare regimes such as the UK, the US, Australia and New Zealand, and contrasting these experiences with its application in European institutions. The differential usage across these geopolitical settings is highlighted. Drawing upon Esping-Andersen's welfare state typology, and an explicit acknowledgement of national differences in relation to ethnic and cultural diversity, various explanations for these differences are discussed and their policy consequences explored.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it