MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523410580 · doi:10.17528/cifor/002255

Capturing nested spheres of poverty: a model for multidimensional poverty analysis and monitoring

2007· book· en· W1523410580 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C. Gonner, Michaela Haug, A. Cahyat, Eva Wollenberg, de Jong W, G. Limberg, P. Cronkleton, M. Moeliono, Mimi Larsen Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueCenter for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks · 2007
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFP7 International CooperationInternational Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentCentre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le DéveloppementSveriges LantbruksuniversitetBundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und EntwicklungEuropean CommissionOverseas Development InstituteInternational Development Research CentreTinker FoundationNature ConservancyInstitut Alam Sekitar dan Pembangunan, Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaInternational Tropical Timber OrganizationMargot Marsh Biodiversity FoundationUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
KeywordsPovertySPHERESEconomicsEconomic growthPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the authors discuss recent trends in poverty concepts and suggest a locally adapted multidimensional model for measuring and monitoring poverty. The model comprises nested layers with subjective wellbeing in the centre surrounded by a core of health, wealth and knowledge, and a context that includes natural, economic, social and political spheres, as well as service and structural aspects. These nine facets of poverty cover basic needs, individual assets and capabilities, and the enabling environment that helps people escape poverty by ensuring sustainability, providing opportunities and minimising vulnerability. The model was tested in several monitoring trials and in the official poverty and wellbeing monitoring of Kutai Barat District, Indonesia, in early 2006. Twenty-one subdistricts covering 223 villages with more than 150 000 people were assessed. Examples drawn from this experience illustrate possible applications of the model.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCenter for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooksSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207