“Who Do They Think We Are, Anyway?”: Perceptions of and Responses to Poverty Stigma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we report on qualitative findings pertaining to low-income people's perceptions of and responses to "poverty stigma," a key component of social exclusion with important implications for health and well-being. Our findings are drawn from a multimethod study designed to investigate experiences of social exclusion and social isolation among people living on low incomes. We conducted semistructured individual interviews (n = 59) and group interviews (total n = 34) with low-income residents of two large Canadian cities. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis techniques. Participants overwhelmingly thought that other members of society tend to view them as a burden to society-as lazy, disregarding of opportunities, irresponsible, and opting for an easy life. Low-income people responded to perceived stigma with a variety of cognitive and behavioral strategies that reflected their efforts to reconcile their perceived "social" and "personal" identities. These strategies included confronting discrimination directly, disregarding responses from others, helping other low-income people, withdrawing and isolating themselves from others, engaging in processes of cognitive distancing, and concealing their financial situation.
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.
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 | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it