MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408213258 · doi:10.55016/ojs/jcph.v2i1.77909

‘You're just invisible and you don't matter at all’: The structural violence of the COVID-19 Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB)

2025· article· en· W4408213258 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abby Taher, George Payne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Gun violenceHistoryMedicineMedical emergencyVirologyPoison controlSuicide preventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March of 2020, the Canadian government introduced the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), a taxable income transfer of $2000 CAD a month received by millions of Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that CERB is an example of structural violence because the eligibility requirements excluded many Canadians living in poverty. CERB provided a window into the structure of power in Canada, differentiating those ‘deserving’ of government support (i.e., temporarily unemployed workers) from those who were not. We undertook this qualitative research to document the experiences and perspectives of individuals living in poverty who were ineligible for CERB. An analysis of 28 interviews shows that participants felt their suffering was invisible to policymakers, particularly in relation to unmet basic needs, including food and shelter; stigma and lack of dignity; and the ongoing stress of economic precarity. Participants were unanimous that CERB should become permanent and made available to all in poverty. Although millions of Canadians experienced a temporary form of basic income during a time of crisis, it is unclear how to mobilize that experience to pressure government to provide everyone with a permanent income floor sufficient to meet basic needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Critical Public HealthSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207