The Answer to Poverty: A Universal Basic Income in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an examination of the persistent issue of poverty within Canada, recognizing the various causes and the previous attempts to solve it, before concluding that the key failure of all prior poverty reduction strategies is a focus on poverty alleviation, rather than poverty eradication. This paper suggests that an alternative method would be to implement a Universal Basic Income, presenting an examination of prior research in the field, comparing it to similar models and addressing the various criticisms that have been raised against it. Finally, this paper utilizes statistics provided by the Canadian government to determine what the impact of a UBI would be on all Canadians who report income. A simplistic model is set out with a level of $18,000 per year, and including a flat 50% tax rate, with a break-even point of $36,000. Using a model like this, Canada would ensure that no person would have an income of less than $18,000, while nearly half of all Canadians would see their incomes rise. Those who make more than the break-even point would see a manageable increase in taxes though when compared to current tax rates in Canada’s four most populated provinces, the decrease in income these individuals would see is relatively insignificant.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".