MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

POLARIZATION OF THE POOR: MULTIVARIATE RELATIVE POVERTY MEASUREMENT SANS FRONTIERS

2009· article· en· W2147334222 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Income and Wealth · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPolarization (electrochemistry)EconomicsMultivariate statisticsFrontierLife expectancyDevelopment economicsMultivariate analysisDemographic economicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceSociologyDemographyPopulationStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major impediment to poverty evaluation in environments with a multiplicity of wellbeing indicators is the difficulty associated with formulating a poverty frontier in many dimensions. This paper proposes two multivariate relative polarization measures which, in appropriate circumstances, serve as multivariate poverty measures which do not require computation of a poverty frontier. As poverty measures they have the intuitive appeal of reflecting the degree to which poor and non‐poor societies are polarized. (The measures would also have considerable application in studying multivariate convergence issues in economic growth models.) The measures are exemplified in a poor–non‐poor country study over the period 1990–2005, based upon the joint distribution of per capita GNP and Life Expectancy. The results suggest that as a group, the world's poor are experiencing diminished poverty polarization; however, within the world's poor the African nations are experiencing increased poverty polarization.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Income and WealthSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207