The impact of livestock assets among indigenous communities on the Bolivian Altiplano: findings from a comparative model
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring poverty has occupied a lot of space in the development discourse. Over the years a number of approaches have been offered to capture the experience of what it means to be poor. However, latterly such approaches often ignore core assets. Indeed, the comparative impact of livestock vs. other core assets such as land and education on poverty has not been well explored. Therefore, the authors created an 'asset impact model' to examine changes to both tangible and intangible assets at the household level, with a particular focus on gender and ethnicity among communities residing in the Bolivian Altiplano. The simple model illustrates that for indigenous women, a 20 per cent increase in the livestock herd has the same impact on household income as increasing the education levels by 20 per cent and household land ownership by 5 per cent. The study illustrates the potential role of a productive, tangible asset, i.e. livestock, on poverty reduction in the short term. The policy implications of supporting asset-focused measures of poverty are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it