Barriers to Improved Capability for Low-income Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines barriers to improved well-being for low-income Canadians. It uses the capability approach to explore how personal, institutional and banking factors interact to create obstacles to improved capability. It does this by relying on financial life histories from 15 low-income people living in inner-cities in Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg. The financial life histories are a qualitative method in which respondents were recruited using a snowball sampling method, and asked to share personal stories about their life and financial goals. Respondents are, by Canadian standards, acutely poor and several faced multiple personal barriers including mental illness and substance abuse. The results indicate that participants experienced many more periods of declining, as compared with improving, capability. Respondents identified a series of personal (e.g., illness and addiction), structural (e.g., poorly funded education and low-levels of social assistance support), and banking (e.g., high banking fees and limited appropriate services) obstacles to their improved capability. Most respondents noted that they faced several obstacles at once that created powerful unfreedoms to improved capability. Weak banking services in the neighbourhoods was an important factor in limiting the capability of the respondents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".