MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981402397

The Effect of Differences in Treatment of \nthe Canada Emergency Response Benefit \nacross Provincial and Territorial Income \nAssistance Programs

2020· article· en· W6981402397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman auditory perception and evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCashAmbivalencePaymentEarnings
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Prestation canadienne d'urgence (PCU) est un programme temporaire de transferts monétaires destiné aux travailleurs dont les revenus ont diminué en raison de la pandémie de la COVID-19. Certains travailleurs bénéficiant de la PCU reçoivent également de l'aide provinciale ou territoriale au revenu. Les objectifs et les définitions de la PCU n'ayant pas été clairement établis, le traitement dont elle fait l'objet varie considérablement selon les programmes d'aide au revenu provinciaux et territoriaux. Les auteures se demandent en quoi ces différences de traitement de la PCU par les programmes provinciaux d'aide au revenu touchent les clients de l'aide au revenu, selon les administrations. Elles se penchent sur les arguments qui auraient dû militer en faveur de l'entière exclusion de la PCI dans le calcul des prestations d'aide au revenu. Abstract: The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) is a temporary cash transfer program for workers who have reduced earnings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some workers receiving the CERB also receive provincial or territorial income assistance. A lack of clear objectives and definitions related to the CERB has led to the CERB being treated very differently by provincial and territorial income assistance (IA) programs. We look at how these different treatments of CERB under provincial income assistance programs affect IA clients across jurisdictions. We consider arguments for why the CERB should have been fully exempted from IA benefits.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicHuman auditory perception and evaluationFrench-language works237,207