MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049290070

Holes in the Social Safety Net: Poverty, Inequality and Social Assistance in Canada

2020· article· en· W3049290070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Inez Hillel

Bibliographic record

VenueCSLS Research Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertySafety netWelfare dependencyWelfareSocial policyDemographic economicsGovernment (linguistics)Dependency ratioInequalityMinimum wageEconomic growthEconomicsPolitical scienceLabour economicsDemographySociologyPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report looks at Canada’s social safety net before the onset of the crisis caused by COVID-19 and collapsing oil prices. It sets the stage by reviewing trends in poverty and inequality between 1976 and 2018. The report examines the federal government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy and its success in reducing poverty for children and seniors. Working-age adults without children have experienced the smallest relative decrease in poverty and currently have the highest poverty rates among any age group. The report analyzes general eligibility criteria and work and training requirements for social assistance, and the adequacy of welfare. National trends show that welfare dependency has fallen significantly between 1998 and 2018. Other significant trends show an increase in the percentage of social assistance recipients reporting a disability, a growing proportion of single adults on welfare and a decrease in the number of families with children receiving social assistance. To reduce poverty and improve welfare adequacy, this report recommends increasing social assistance benefits, raising the minimum wage, improving earning supplements for low-wage workers and extending in-kind benefits to all low-income.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0170.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCSLS Research ReportsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207