Combating Social Inequalities in Turkey through Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Political parties of varying ideological positions all over the globe have started to implement the Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) including the centre-left Worker’s Party (PT) of Brazil and centre-right conservative Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey. In Brazil, the Bolsa Familia Program has become globally known as presenting an example for a highly effective short-term poverty alleviation mechanism. Up until today about one quarter of Brazil’s population (about 11 million households) have been pulled out of extreme poverty and through that social participation for the most vulnerable members of Brazilian society was being increased remarkably. In Turkey, the Bolsa Familia program served as a model for the Social Risk Mitigation Project (SRMP) that was introduced as a World Bank project after the financial crisis in Turkey in 2001. Recent impact evaluations have shown that CCTs are particularly successful in terms of diminishing poverty and indigence levels among lower segments of the society in the developing world. This article focuses on the question in how far CCTs have helped to diminish social inequalities in Turkey by concentrating on three crucial areas of interest: gender inequalities, transition to labour market as well as regional imbalances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".