Living with poverty: A simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This research explores whether participating in a poverty simulation resulted in changes to participants’ beliefs about the causes and effects of poverty, as well as shifts in their attitudes and actions towards people experiencing poverty. In this multiple case study, we analysed quantitative and qualitative data from participant feedback surveys and pre-, post- and follow-up questionnaires from two samples: undergraduate students and community participants. We conclude that the poverty simulation is only a step, albeit a potentially important one, to enhance participants’ understanding about the causes of poverty, and to alter their attitudes and beliefs about people living in poverty. Findings We found statistically significant results (p < .05) on cumulative scores of the modified Attitudes Toward Poverty Scale, indicating an improvement in participants’ attitudes towards poverty (both samples). Although generally positive about their experiences, participating in the simulation did not appear to have prompted participants to take action to reduce poverty. Applications Poverty simulation planners should be wary of adopting scenarios that emphasize, or fail to adequately contextualize, behaviours or responses that might perpetuate individual explanations of poverty. Moreover, organizers must carefully consider how to ensure participants in their audience currently experiencing low income do not become emotionally distressed, triggered or further marginalized in the process. While overall participants were positive about their experiences in the simulation, the events did not appear to have prompted them to action. Moving beyond the goal of increasing participants’ understandings of poverty, interventions that foster greater engagement in poverty issues over the long term are necessary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".