MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards Frequent and Accurate Poverty Data

2014· report· en· W2731019714 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sabina Alkire

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Oxford · 2014
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und EntwicklungAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenUniversity of OxfordInternational Development Research CentreEconomic and Social Research CouncilInternational Fine Particle Research InstituteUnited Nations Development ProgrammeRobertson FoundationUNICEF
KeywordsPovertyData collectionSustainable developmentBasic needsPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsEconomic growthEconomicsSociologySocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is increasingly acknowledged that data availability plays a crucial role in the fight against poverty.Poverty data has increased in both quantity and frequency over the past 30 years, but still lags behind the data available on most other economic phenomena.Yet there are vibrant experiences that are often overlooked:Ø Data for monetary & multidimensional poverty dramatically increased since 1980.Ø Sixty countries already produce annual updates to key statistics.Ø Some have continuous household surveys with cost-cutting synergies.Ø International agencies have probed short surveys for comparable data. Ø Certain regions have agreed on harmonised variable definitions across countries.Ø New technologies can drastically reduce lags between data collection and analysis.The post-2015 agenda identified the need for regularly updated data to monitor the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).This paper points out existing experiences that shed light on how to break the cycle of outdated poverty data and strengthen statistical systems.Such experiences show that it is possible to generate and analyse frequent and accurate poverty data that energizes and enables poverty eradication.

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)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.277
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.277
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.021
Open science0.0050.017
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of OxfordSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207