Canada : national-building in a federal welfare state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, three distinct models of federalism govern different social programmes:\nclassical federalism, with programmes run exclusively by one level of government; shared\ncosts federalism, with the federal government financially supporting provincial\nprogrammes; and joint-decision federalism, where formal approval by both levels of\ngovernment is mandatory before any action can take place. Each of these models creates\ndifferent decision rules, altering the mix of governments and ideologies at the bargaining\ntable, redistributing power among those who have a seat at the table, and requiring different\nlevels of consensus for action. The result has been three separate kinds of interactions\nbetween institutions and policy during the postwar era of welfare state expansion.\nAs in the era of expansion, the new politics of social policy in the ‘silver age’ had to\nflow through the three distinctive institutional filters created by federal institutions, helping\nto explain the uneven impact of retrenchment in Canada. Exclusively federal programmes\nwere unprotected by intergovernmental relations and fully exposed to shifts in national\npolitics, with dramatic cuts especially in unemployment benefits. In contrast, joint-decision\nfederalism helped protect contributory pensions from radical restructuring; while sharedcost\nfederalism made it possible to preserve the basic model of the health care system, at\nleast in respect of hospital, physician and diagnostic services, if not always in respect of the\ngenerosity of funding.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".