MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115727040 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/h42t8

Policy Perspectives: Canadian Guaranteed Basic Income Benefit

2025· other· W7115727040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVotingNet incomeIncome SupportBasic incomePreferenceCost–benefit analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We will survey Canadians' voting preferences between four different options for the design of a national guaranteed basic income (GBI) in Canada: 1) a net cost version, 2) a cost neutral version, 3) a net savings version, and 4) a none of the versions. The goal is to understand what, if any, kinds of GBI programs receive the greatest level of support from Canadians. We hypothesize that different programs will be associated with different levels of support from the public.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.052
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0480.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.086

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.321 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207