MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025155560 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v5n12p70

Are Remittances to Sub-Saharan Africa Altruistic or for Self-Interest? Evidence from Kenya

2013· article· en· W2025155560 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chien‐Ping Chen, John Kagochi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAltruism (biology)KenyaEconomicsDistributed lagGovernment (linguistics)Interest rateSelf-interestMonetary economicsDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International remittances comprise significant financial inflow for many Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries and provide considerable disposable income for the receiving households. There has, however, been no consensus on the motivation in the part of sending migrants in which explanations are divided between altruism and self-interest. The study employs Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) model with co-integration approach to investigate whether international remittances to Kenya can be explained by either altruistic or self-interest motive. We process the World Bank annual data from 1970 to 2010 and find that self-interest, not altruism, as the dominant motivation to determine remittances. The analysis also indicates that demand on housing and exchange rates are the two strong drivers of international remittances to Kenya in both short-run and long-run. The Kenyan government is supposed to facilitate savings from remittances through financial institutions to invest more in the small business sector for economic growth.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207