MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192868778 · doi:10.1080/10875549.2021.1957070

Debunking Myths about Poverty: Social Actor Representation of the Participants of the Canceled Ontario Basic Income Pilot Project

2021· article· en· W3192868778 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tracy Smith‐Carrier, Jacqueline On

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Poverty · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyMythologyRepresentation (politics)Government (linguistics)SociologyBasic incomePsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to explore the representation of participants of the canceled Basic Income Pilot in Ontario, Canada. Applying social actor representation analysis and the Discourse-Historical Approach of Critical Discourse Analysis, we examined news articles and government Hansard records about the canceled Ontario Basic Income Pilot in 2018. A number of myths about poverty emerged in our analysis (e.g., “people are lazy, unmotivated, and need incentives to work”; “poor people are mentally ill and drug addicted”). We challenge the veracity of these myths, showing how they perpetuate an individual explanation of poverty, and are deeply flawed.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0300.037
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PovertySame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207