MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292569047 · doi:10.1080/19376812.2015.1088391

One community’s journey to lobby for water in an environment of privatized water: is Usoma too poor for the pro-poor program?

2016· article· en· W2292569047 on OpenAlexaff
Elijah Bisung, Diana M. S. Karanja, Bernard Abudho, Yonah Oguna, Nicholas Mwaura, Paul Ego, Corinne J. Schuster‐Wallace, Susan J. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Geographical Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and HealthUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achieving the proposed water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) post-MDG goals will require targeted measures if the human right to water and sanitation is ever to be realized. Particularly in rural areas, among urban poor populations and marginalized communities where access remains low, the human right to water and sanitation is an important vehicle to raise attention to inequalities in access. In this paper, we explore the journey of Usoma, a small community in Western Kenya, as they move toward the realization of a human right to water and sanitation. In the face of international pressure for increasingly privatized water and sanitation services that emphasize efficiency and financial sustainability, we conclude that translating the human right to water and sanitation requires adequate commitment to ‘pro-poor’ policies, innovative financing models, monitoring of water service providers, and stakeholder engagement at all levels of government. Only in this way will access to water and sanitation be realized as a human right.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Geographical ReviewSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207