MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794139076 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n4p178

Characterization of Social Capital Using a Nested Latent Class Model: Case of Rural Areas in Central Malawi

2018· article· en· W2794139076 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph Dzanja

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial capitalLatent class modelTypologyMultinomial logistic regressionSocial mobilityWelfareSocial classDemographic economicsEconomicsSocioeconomicsPublic economicsEconomic growthSociologySocial scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social capital relates to capital created when a group of individuals or organizations develop the ability to work together for mutually productive gain. Gains in economic performance and innovative capacity depend on the institutional effectiveness of these relationships as measured by the available stock of social capital. Studies on social capital have however, been criticized for failing to account for the multi-dimensional and latent nature of the concept. Using household survey data from Malawi, this study uses latent class analytical methods to explore social capital and how it relates to welfare of people in rural communities in Malawi in Africa. It highlights the usefulness of latent class analytical methods for providing statistically valid information about the characteristics and determinants of social capital. Using the social capital dimensions of trust, participation and volunteering a four class LCA typology was constructed. Around 30% of the sample were classified as ‘trusty participants’, reporting active participation in the socio-economic activities of their communities and a high degree of community and institutional trust. Multinomial logistic regression revealed the covariates of the different typologies of social capital.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSocial Capital and NetworksFrench-language works237,207