Universalism Contested: The Exclusivity of a Universal Basic Income
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universal basic income is recognized as an adequate response in fulfilling the needs of individuals with disabilities. Proponents of basic income believe that it could potentially reduce financial strains often prevalent in the disability community and shift negative connotations currently attributed to individuals with disabilities. My paper addresses the repercussions that could arise amidst the implementation of a universal basic income in Canada. My analysis indicates that the eventuality of basic income will not further the participation of individuals with disabilities, nor will it address the lack of resources that are indispensable to the creation of meaningful and inclusive opportunities. Rather, I will demonstrate that a universal basic income would increasingly perpetuate the marginalization of individuals with disabilities. This basic income would also render their participation within society difficult. In sum, I will argue that the implementation of a universal basic income in Canada would not respond to the systematic barriers that shape the participation of individuals with disabilities within today’s society.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".