MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2237395631 · doi:10.1080/07360932.2015.1114005

Money Pools in the Americas: The African Diaspora’s Legacy in the Social Economy

2016· article· en· W2237395631 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Caroline Shenaz Hossein

Bibliographic record

VenueForum for Social Economics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityRhode Island CollegeUniversity of Denver
KeywordsDiasporaIndigenousMiddle PassageEconomyAfrican descentSocial policyDevelopment economicsPolitical economySociologyEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsGender studiesEthnologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Money pools are ancient African traditions that speak to the functionality of getting things done by a historically oppressed group of people. The analysis for this study is based on 583 interviews in five Caribbean countries: Haiti, Grenada, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana. African traditions of collectives reveal that Black people have long had money pools that focused on helping people thrive in commerce, including during the hard times of slavery and colonization. This research argues that throughout the Caribbean indigenous banking systems—with localized names such as susu, partner, meeting-turn, box-hand and sol—are long-standing ancient traditions that historically and currently are taking a bold stand against exclusionary financial systems. African-Caribbean people have an important legacy on the social economy through money pools. The ways in which persons of African descent organize in the social economy is vital to unravelling the market fundamentalist view that there is only a singular way to do business in society.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForum for Social EconomicsSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207