Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘In a way, basic income could also be seen as a down payment on a new, cooperative economy, a subsidy for more socially just economic activity, care-oriented work and political organising – much of which receives no compensation in the current economy.’ In 2015, over 60 movement leaders from Canada’s Indigenous rights, social and food justice, environmental, faith-based and labour movements came together to write The Leap Manifesto , a roadmap for how Canada can transition away from fossil fuels in a way that changes the country for the better. The manifesto contains 15 demands to shape the great transition, and the thirteenth relates to a basic income guarantee: ‘Since so much of the labour of caretaking – whether of people or the planet – is currently unpaid, we call for a vigorous debate about the introduction of a universal basic annual income. Pioneered in Manitoba in the 1970s, this sturdy safety net could help ensure that no one is forced to take work that threatens their children’s tomorrow, just to feed those children today.’ So why this most Canadian of entreaties – a call for a debate – in this otherwise-declarative manifesto? On one hand, for some environmentalists, feminists and advocates of Indigenous rights in this country, the progressive case for a basic income could not be more clear. An income is society’s way of recognising an individual’s contributions to the collective good. A basic income guarantee is therefore an acknowledgement of the value of the unpaid labour that underlies our collective wellbeing: the defence of our water, land and air; care of family and community – or as it’s referred to in The Leap Manifesto , the labour of caretaking ‘of people and the planet.’ A basic income set at a high enough level would also address the indignity and cruelty of our country’s current poverty-alleviation programmes, where in the country’s largest province, Ontario, recipients of social assistance survive on incomes that are up to 60% below the poverty line . As one recipient put it in an interview with the Toronto Star : ‘Someone else decides when and if I eat.’ Canada has also contributed a specific and fascinating chapter to the history of basic 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.015 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".