MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MEASURING POVERTY – WHAT HAPPENED TO COPENHAGEN?

2007· article· en· W2065121442 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Sarlo

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Affairs · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyAbsolute (philosophy)SummitExtreme povertyInequalityBasic needsDevelopment economicsPoor peopleCulture of povertyEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Absolute poverty can be thought of as a condition of ‘insufficiency’, i.e. the inability to acquire the basic necessities of life. Relative poverty can be thought of as a condition of ‘inequality’. At the World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995, all participants made a commitment to produce official measures of both absolute and relative poverty and to strive to eradicate absolute poverty within a reasonable time frame. Despite these commitments, measures of absolute poverty are rare in the developed world. This paper concludes that both kinds of measures are needed for intelligent discussions and good policy‐making.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0090.021
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.295
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic AffairsSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207