MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971891471 · doi:10.1080/02255189.2012.663749

Policy-based analysis of the intensity, causes and effects of poverty: the case of Mawlamyine, Myanmar

2012· article· fr· W1971891471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ni Lar, Peter Calkins, Songsak Sriboonchitta, Pisit Leeahtam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyInequalityWelfare economicsPopulationPerspective (graphical)Political scienceDevelopment economicsHumanitiesGeographySociologyEconomic growthEconomicsDemographyArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article tells the story of poverty in Myanmar from a policy perspective. It employs an unprecedented household-level dataset on Mawlamyine Township to provide hitherto-lacking measurements of the extent of poverty and inequality, as well as the significant causes of that poverty. It then uses the expenditure and income behaviour of residents to interpret the ability of the population to meet their food and non-food basic needs. Since poverty, its proximate causes, the prices of food and other necessities are all amenable to policy interventions, the artilce then identifies the most effective policies for alleviating poverty in Myanmar. Résumé Cet article présente une perspective factuelle de la pauvreté au Myanmar. L'article tente de déterminer la capacité de la population à satisfaire ses besoins essentiels, alimentaires et immédiats. Les analyses relatives à l'état de pauvretés, aux inégalités et à leurs causes respectives, sont conduites à l'aide de données inédites sur les ménages de la région de Mawlamyine. Sachant que les politiques publiques sont susceptibles d'influer sur la pauvreté, ce travail identifie les mesures les plus susceptibles de combattre cette dernière au Myanmar.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développementSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207