Recipient health in response to welfare reform, Ontario 1994-1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing attention is being paid to the common ground uniting income inequalities and health status by gauging how societal structures influence population health. Yet within this nascent literature, more work must be done to study the association between welfare policy and recipient health. To redress this lacuna, the introduction of the welfare reform initiative ‘Ontario Works’ in 1995 offered an apposite before-and-after scenario to gauge how neoliberal ideology affected welfare policy in Ontario. In turn, welfare benefit declines permitted an assessment of the effect that welfare state retrenchment had on recipient health. To achieve this end, Ontarians responding to the National Population Health Survey in 1994-1995 and 1998-1999 were assessed on self-reported health measures to determine whether diminishing welfare benefits predicted health declines. From the results it emerges that long-term welfare recipients reported significant health declines over the study interval, declines that proved particularly noteworthy given that the health status of welfare recipients was initially superior to that of the provincial sample. These findings may lend further credence to the assertion of welfare state apologists that state intervention ameliorates the health effects of wider neoliberal directives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".