Poverty Eradication in Fragile Places: Prospects for Harvesting the Highest Hanging Fruit by 2030
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the range of likely and potential progress on poverty eradication in fragile states to 2030. Using the International Futures model and recently released 2011 International Comparison Program data, this paper calculates current (2015) poverty for a US$1.90 poverty line, and subsequently runs three scenarios. The estimates suggest that there are 485 million poor in fragile states in 2015, a 33.5 per cent poverty rate. This paper’s Base Case scenario results in a forecasted 22.8 per cent poverty rate in fragile states by 2030. The most optimistic scenario yields a 13.1 per cent poverty rate for this group of countries (257 million). An optimistic scenario reflecting political constraints in fragile states yields a 19.1 per cent poverty rate (376 million). Even under the most optimistic circumstances, fragile states will almost certainly be home to hundreds of millions of poor in 2030, suggesting that the world must do things dramatically differently if we are to reach the high hanging fruit and truly ‘leave no one behind’ in the next fifteen years of development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it