MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2361377587 · doi:10.1177/156482651303400405

Effect of Poverty Reduction Program on Nutritional Status of the Extreme Poor in Bangladesh

2013· article· en· W2361377587 on OpenAlexaff
Chowdhury Jalal, Edward A. Frongillo

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Nutrition Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
FundersDepartment for International Development
KeywordsPovertyEnvironmental healthExtreme povertyMedicineConfoundingDemographyEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Poverty alleviation programs for the extreme poor improve participants' economic status and may impact other important outcomes that are seldom evaluated. A program targeted to the extreme poor by BRAG, a development organization in Bangladesh, has been successful in significantly alleviating extreme poverty. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that the program also improved the nutritional status of women and preschool children. METHODS: A nonequivalent control, pre- and posttest quasi-experimental design that was longitudinal at the village level was used to test the hypotheses. Data were collected from a random sample of 4,131 children and 3,551 women from 3,409 households in 159 villages of 3 northern districts of Bangladesh in 2002 and 2006. Linear mixed random-intercept models accounted for clustering effects and potential confounders. RESULTS: The weight-for-height of children between 24 and 35 months of age from program households was significantly higher (p < .05) than that of children from control households. We found no significant differences between control and program households in three other growth and body-composition indicators in three other age categories of preschool children or in women. CONCLUSIONS: These results are important, as this is a large-scale program that has already been extended to more than half the country. The findings will contribute to judging the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of the program and in garnering support for the expansion of such programs.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Nutrition BulletinSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207