A Profile of Income Assistance Recipients in Winnipeg’s Inner City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine the experiences of welfare recipients with the welfare bureaucracy in the city of Winnipeg. For many inner city residents some form of income assistance is a vital part of their overall income and necessary for basic subsistence (food and rent). Consequently, the decisions of welfare officials are tremendously significant for these individuals and the treatment they receive at the hands of those officials will help structure their attitudes about the state, their conception of their place in society as citizens and their own sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Through a series of structured interviews with welfare recipients this study attempts to provide a picture of the nature and experience of those inner city residents that make use of the welfare system. \nIt documents who these people are, the types of problems they experience with the welfare bureaucracy, their understanding of the welfare system, and the need for improved advocacy programmes to better enable them to navigate the system. Finally, it provides a glimpse at what welfare recipients understand to be the barriers and obstacles they face in moving away from welfare and into paid employment. To many, the results of the interviews will not come as a surprise. However, it is important to document in these results in a systematic way in the hopes that they will have an influence on policy makers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".