MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7005922237

Social Policy and ConstitutionalReform:The Case of Canada’s FamilyAllowance Program in the 1970s

2007· report· en· W7005922237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueoURspace (University of Regina) · 2007
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionHyporeflexiaTSG101Gestational periodSubpoenaHyperlactatemiaLiquation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family allowances were one of the few programs shared by all Canadian families from 1945 to 1992, and one of the few means of building social cohesion across Canada. Family allowances became embroiled in the minefield of Canadian intergovernmental relations and the political crisis created by the growing demands from Quebec for greater autonomy from the federal government in the early 1970s. Ottawa initially dismissed Quebec’s demands for control over social programs generally, and family allowances in particular. However, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau reformed the family allowances program as a means of enticing Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa to amend the British North America Act. The government’s priority was constitutional reform, and the prime minister used social policy as a bargaining chip to achieve his policy objectives in that area. This study shows that public policy decisions made with regard to social policy were not motivated by the pressing desire to make more effective policies for children and families, but as a way to deal with other government priorities.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0480.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueoURspace (University of Regina)→Same topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species→French-language works237,207→