MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897352746 · doi:10.1111/soc4.12640

Structural and individualistic theories of poverty

2018· article· en· W2897352746 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology Compass · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyIndividualismSituational ethicsPositive economicsSociologyMethodological individualismMacroCulture of povertySimple (philosophy)EconomicsEpistemologySocial psychologyBasic needsPsychologyNeoclassical economicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper clarifies and contrasts the explanatory mechanisms in individualistic and structural accounts of poverty. I argue that individualistic approaches obscure a great deal of the theoretical substance in the causal explanation of poverty, as they lack a macro‐level appraisal of the subject. Such arguments can explain why one person has a higher risk of poverty than another, but ignore the fact that a full account of poverty is not furnished by a simple adding up of all the separate individual‐level accounts. I also argue that there are in fact two separate macro‐level explanations of poverty: where macro‐structural explanations attempt to provide accounts of the “empty places” of poverty into which individuals get slotted, situational accounts attempt to explain the circumstances under which specific “poverty‐generating” behaviors arise. I conclude by providing a synthesis of individual and structural accounts of poverty, showing that while the two approaches need not be viewed as entirely antagonistic, the former should be accorded a far more modest role and indeed subsumed into broader structural accounts.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.302 · 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