MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560582932 · doi:10.1111/spol.12275

Social Policy Instruments in Motion. Conditional Cash Transfers from Mexico to Peru

2016· article· en· W2560582932 on OpenAlexaff
Jane Jenson, Nora Nagels

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Policy and Administration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConditional cash transferLatin AmericansCertificationSocial policyIndigenousStandardizationPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthPovertyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Social policy prescriptions for Latin America have shifted significantly over recent decades. This article tracks a process by which a conditional cash transfer (CCT) to mothers, begun in a Mexican programme with some pretensions to promoting gender equality, was standardized by international organizations, becoming a policy instrument characterized by gender sensitivity, but having little attention to equality. In addition to involving certification by international organizations, this standardization process framed the CCT as an instrument of social investment and was a decontextualization of the Mexican version that had been influenced by Beijing‐style international feminism. The third phase of this trajectory was take‐up of the standard model by Peruvian policymakers and employees of the Juntos programme who overlaid their long‐standing representations of their indigenous clientele onto a supposedly ‘modern’ social policy instrument, thereby rendering it both maternalist and neo‐colonial.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Policy and AdministrationSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207