MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156580463 · doi:10.3138/cpp.39.4.491

Fighting Poverty: Assessing the Effect of Guaranteed Minimum Income Proposals in Quebec

2013· article· en· W2156580463 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicholas‐James Clavet, Jean‐Yves Duclos, Guy Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on OrganizationsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsSubsidyEconomicsPovertyWageMinimum wageDemographic economicsSample (material)Labour economicsEconometricsAccountingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the impact of a recent recommendation made by Quebec’s Comité consultatif de lutte contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale to guarantee every individual an income equal to 80 percent of Statistics Canada’s Market Basket Measure (MBM). Workers with earnings at least equivalent to 16 hours at the minimum wage would be entitled to 100 percent of the MBM. We also investigate the impact of three alternative proposals: (a) a change in the above hours cut-off from 16 to 30 hours; (b) a guaranteed income equal to 100 percent of the MBM, irrespective of earnings; and (c) a $3/hour conditional wage subsidy. To do this, we first estimate a structural labour supply model using the existing tax code and predict the labour supply of a representative sample of individuals based upon the parameter estimates of the model. Simulations show that the original recommendation would have strong negative impacts on participation rates of low earners and that its cost would exceed $2 billion. Increasing the hours cut-off is predicted to have little impact beyond that of the original recommendation. Providing a guaranteed income equivalent to 100 percent of the MBM, on the other hand, would have a large impact. We find that contrary to what is usually assumed, guaranteed income schemes may increase the incidence of low income rather than decrease it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207