‘Covering all the [welfare] basics’: a critical policy study of the Expert Panel on Basic Income report in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, British Columbia (BC), Canada’s third most populous province, announced the creation of an Expert Panel to explore the feasibility of introducing a basic income in BC. The Expert Panel on Basic Income prepared the policy report, Covering All the Basics: Reforms for a More Just Society, that responded to this task. Our research applies a critical policy studies approach to explore the ideologies, discursive strategies, and discourses embedded in and emanating from the report. In so doing, we find that the report reproduces problematic discourses about self-sufficiency, welfare dependency, and (poor) choice(s). Rather than discarding a basic income for the working-age population based on flawed assumptions and problematic beliefs, we invite policymakers to consider a more transformative vision that recognises the systemic roots of financial hardship, and embraces a basic income as a key building block of income security for BC and all of Canada.
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 | 0.052 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.072 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| 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".