That is a pretty misleading assessment of the study:
> Overall, there was a slight reduction in the number employed during the pilot compared to the number employed prior to the pilot. Ten respondents moved from unemployment to employment while 32 moved from employment to unemployment. Of the participants who moved from employment to unemployment, 13 (40.6%) enrolled in full-time education during the pilot with the intention of re-entering the labour market later as more qualified workers.
The work disincentive seems well below 10%.
> If you consider multi-generational entrenchments of poverty as its own problem, worth serious merit, then the work disincentive could be a disaster.
The meta study you linked to shows a marked difference in the effect across genders. It seems pretty likely that a reduction in the labor force would caused by a significant factor by families where both parents work, and one has the ability to stay home with the kids. I don't see any data here talking about an increase in household where neither parent works. I suspect that any decrease that does exist, applies to single-parent households.
When you take this into account alongside the number of these the "work disincentived" that are people moving into full-time education programs, it doesn't seem obvious at all that here will be a negative effect on multi-generational poverty.
Finally, that article seems to lack a basic understanding of economics. A reduction in employment due to reductions in the job supply (such as during a recession) is in no way equivalent to a reduction in employment due to reductions in the labor supply. When you reduce the job supply, you reduce consumer income due to job loss / wage reductions, this compounds to further lower economic activity and thus leads to more reduction in the job supply. When you reduce labor supply through UBI, you don't see the same drop in consumer income, and wages should actually go up.