UK financialisation of public service delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British state continues to propagate a series of post colonial governance and service delivery initiatives, especially based on the third sector, with support for impact measurement, social investment and the financialisation of health, social care and welfare. This recompositing of the political space means that a vast infrastructure provides a platform for philanthrocapitalism (McGoey, 2015), with much of it funded and directed by government through the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment, British Council and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. By products from this mixed economy of welfare render ‘social enterprise’ polysemous (Jenson, 2015, 2020) and may ultimately restore recipient countries to a pre welfare state. This mitigates against any emancipation by grassroots communities and undermines attempts at social justice (Fraser, 2011). This contribution draws an analogy with the 1980s and 1990s transmogrification of welfarism into workfare. ”Workfarism” presented a challenge to welfarism at ideological, institutional and regulatory levels, leading to “transferable ‘reform options’ deployed by consultants, reform advocates, and policy intermediaries (King, 1992; Peck, 1998). Conservative Governments’ expansion of these programmes has only been possible through building on foundations laid down by previous Labour Government and third sector organisations. This trajectory represents a decoupling of UK third sector policy from a social economy in mainland Europe and Quebec. <br/>
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".