Impacts of the Continuous Cash Benefit Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
programme grants a non-contributory benefit of the amount of one minimum wage to elderly people (65 or older) and those with disabilities that make them unfit to live and work independently. To qualify, there must be evidence that the monthly household income per capita is less than a quarter of the minimum wage currently in effect. It is, therefore, aimed at very poor families. The BPC is a right guaranteed by the 1988 Federal Constitution and regulated by the Lei Orgânica de Assistência Social (LOAS – Organic Law on Social Assistance). The cash transfers began in 1996. The benefit amount is quite high when compared to other federal programmes, which is reflected by the sheer size of the programme’s budget: in 2008 it paid out nearly R$14 billion, while Bolsa Família paid out around R$7.5 billion. The BPC has benefited almost 3 million people, while Bolsa Família benefits around 40 million people. As we can see, the BPC has fewer beneficiaries who receive significantly higher amounts than those of other government transfers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.001 |
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".