The place of a basic income in the search for a more just society: a comment on ‘”Covering all the [welfare] basics”: a critical policy study of the Expert Panel on Basic Income report in British Columbia, Canada’ by Tracy Carrier-Smith et al
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we respond to a critical review of Covering all the Basics: Reforms for a More Just Society, published in this journal (Smith-Carrier, T., Forget, E., Power, E. and Halpenny, C. [2024] ‘Covering all the [welfare] basics’: a critical policy study of the Expert Panel on Basic Income report in British Columbia, Canada, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, XX(XX): 1–27, DOI: 10.1332/17598273Y2024D000000016 ), by providing what we view as a more accurate description of the findings and arguments in that report. The result, we hope, is an alternative depiction of how a basic income would relate to the search for a more just 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 | 0.055 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.075 | 0.088 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".