MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Targeting vulnerability after the 2005 earthquake: Pakistan's Livelihood Support Cash Grants programme

2009· article· en· W2004065337 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisasters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLahore University of Management SciencesMcGill UniversityWorld Bank Group
KeywordsLivelihoodCashCash transfersSocioeconomicsVulnerability (computing)GeographyBusinessMedicineFinanceEconomicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 7.6 magnitude (Richter scale) earthquake that struck northern Pakistan on 8 October 2005 was devastating. This paper gauges success in targeting vulnerable families during the transition from relief to reconstruction through cash assistance provided by the Livelihood Support Cash Grants (LSCG) programme. Families without a male member, with a disabled male member aged between 18 and 60 years or with more than five children, defined as vulnerable, were provided with USD 50 per month for six months via a bank transfer. The LSCG scheme enrolled around 750,000 families and selected 267,402 vulnerable families to whom it disbursed a total of USD 86.95 million. Using a community-based survey, this paper assesses leakage and under-coverage (exclusion). Approximately 30 per cent of families received the cash grant. However, only one in two was eligible for the benefit, and one in two deserving families was excluded. This is a matter of grave concern.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · 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