MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2196756463

Multidimensional Poverty Measurement and Analysis: Chapter 6 - Normative Choices in Measurement Design

2015· article· en· W2196756463 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sabina Alkire, James E. Foster, Suman Seth, María Emma Santos, José Manuel Roche, Paola Ballon Fernandez

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
KeywordsNormativePovertyIdentification (biology)Context (archaeology)LegitimacyAction (physics)Normative social influencePsychologyComputer scienceManagement scienceSocial psychologyEconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After a measurement methodology has been chosen, the design of poverty measures—whether unidimensional or multidimensional—require a series of normative choices. These choices relate to the space of the measure, its purpose, unit of identification and analysis, dimensions, indicators, deprivation cutoffs, weights, and poverty line. The normative contribution is not simply philosophical; it has a practical aim: to motivate action. This entails reasoned assessment of multiple considerations including feasibility, technical and statistical strength, ease of communication, and legitimacy. This chapter describes each of these normative choices in the context of multidimensional poverty measurement design. It clarifies the implications of each choice, illustrates interconnections between them, and outlines alternative ways that these choices might be understood, made, and justified.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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