MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775674336 · doi:10.1002/pop4.201

An Embarrassment of Riches and a Surplus of Shame: Amartya Sen on Poverty and Deprivation

2017· article· en· W2775674336 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Peacock

Bibliographic record

VenuePoverty & Public Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShamePovertyEmbarrassmentPerspective (graphical)FeelingSociologyCapability approachCulture of povertySocial psychologySocial exclusionPsychologyPositive economicsBasic needsEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This theoretical contribution to poverty studies investigates Amartya Sen's work as a basis for examining poverty. Sen discusses two social capabilities, each essential to the avoidance of poverty; one is the ability to appear in public without feeling shame, the other the ability to participate in the life of the community. This essay analyzes the intricacies of using the concept of community as a reference group for judging a person's poverty. It develops a notion of the “affluent poor,” which is a logical category of the capability perspective that Sen has developed. Although the affluent poor might appear to be oxymoronic, those who embrace the capability perspective should acknowledge it as a necessary implication of that perspective.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoverty & Public PolicySame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207