MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781557827 · doi:10.5539/sar.v7n1p109

Food Budget Shares and Elasticities in Malawi’s Prisons

2018· article· en· W2781557827 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hastings B. Moloko, Davis H. Ng’ong’ola, Joseph Dzanja, Thabie Chilongo

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPer capitaAgricultural economicsFood processingEconomicsConsumption (sociology)Almost ideal demand systemGeographyAgricultural scienceProduction (economics)Food scienceBiologyPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While Malawi’s per capita cereal production may be higher than her per capita cereal consumption, Malawi is a net cereal importer and thus food insecure. The food situation is much worse in Malawi’s prisons because inmates generally eat one meal per day.The general objective of this study was to determine food budget shares and elasticities for the food stuffs commonly eaten in Malawi’s prisons. Using structured questionnaires in face to face interviews, the study collected data from 1000 prisoners and 30 officers-in-charge from all prisons in the country. The data was analysed using Stata 12 and employed the quadratic almost ideal demand system (QUAIDS) model as an analytical tool.Results from the analysis showed that budget shares for maize and beans were high as reflected by the fact that 86.5 per cent of the prison food budget was spent on these two food items while 6.8 per cent was spent on meat and vegetables. Maize was inelastic while meat, beans and salt were elastic with the own-price elasticity for meat being the highest. Expenditure elasticities for maize, meat and beans, at above unity, showed that these food items were luxuries in Malawi’s prisons.

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)0.000
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 score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207