The Changing Role of Women and Social Security Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
insures virtually every paid worker in the United States. Although successful in dra-matically reducing the number of elderly Americans llvtng in poverty, the program currently is a source of controversy, partic-ularly in regard to the changing role of women in the workplace. Social Security is based on the assumption that the average American worker is male and married to a female who does not work fora salary. This assumption was valid for the 19305 be-cause only 23.6 percent of working-age women participated in the paid force.'The policymakers enacting the program in the 1930s believed the married male worker would not have the financial resources to provide for a married couple during retirement. To meet the financial needs of the married couple, a dependent's benefit (called a spouse benefit), was enacted in 1939.Since then, spouse benefits have helped to insure a minimum standard of living for retirees and to exemplify the adequacy provisions of Social Security, which differentiates the program from private insurance. In the past generation, however, the work pattern of women has changed dramatically. In the last quarter of 1986, 56 percent of working-age women were in the paid labor force, " This change has caused women's groups to question those provisions of Social Security that are inequitable. This article reviews the concerns of women's groups for the historical inequities in the Social Security program, the three options most frequently presented for reform of the Social Security program, and the changes to the program that women can expect realistically. GENDER AND POLICY Policymakers established a Social Security program of benefits based on gender. As Social Security matured, the distribution of benefits raised questions of equity. 1\\vo of the most glaring inequities, the denial of
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".