MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104090332

Multidimensional Poverty Measurement and Analysis: Chapter 8 - Robustness Analysis and Statistical Inference

2015· article· en· W2104090332 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sabina Alkire, James E. Foster, Suman Seth, María Emma Santos, José Manuel Roche, Paola Ballón

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und EntwicklungAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordInternational Development Research CentreEconomic and Social Research CouncilInternational Fine Particle Research InstituteUnited Nations Development ProgrammeRobertson Foundation
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)InferenceEconometricsStatistical inferenceStatisticsComputer scienceStandard errorSample size determinationPovertyStatistical hypothesis testingMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of a poverty measure involves the selection of a set of parameters and poverty figures. In most cases the measures are estimated from sample surveys. This raises the question of how conclusive particular poverty comparisons are subject to both the set of selected parameters (or variations within a plausible range) and the sample datasets. This chapter shows how to apply dominance and rank robustness tests to assess comparisons as poverty cutoffs and other parameters changes. It presents ingredients of statistical inference, including standard errors, confidence intervals, and hypothesis tests. And it discusses how robustness and statistical inference tools can be used together to assert concrete policy conclusions. An appendix presents methods for computing standard errors, including the bootstrapped standard errors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.315
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Same topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207