Conditional cash transfers: A critical review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation In areas of the world where poverty and inequality are deep and pervasive and social protection systems comparatively fragile, cash transfers are becoming commonplace and often promoted by international institutions and aid agencies as a viable instrument for social protection. Particularly, conditional cash transfers (CCTs) are being looked to as a means of reducing poverty while also investing in human capital. Purpose To capture some of the main critiques of CCTs from conception to evaluation, while identifying both gaps and opportunities for research and consideration for the future of CCTs. Methods A rapid review process was used. The initial search was conducted using a number of online peer‐reviewed databases. The initial search process yielded 993 sources, results were then limited to full‐text, English language, and to sources published between 2008 and 2017. Sources were then screened. Finally, 44 articles were chosen for in‐depth review. Findings This review captures some of the main critiques of CCTs from conception to evaluation, while identifying both gaps and opportunities for research and consideration for the future of CCTs. Policy implication We discuss responsibilities and implications for social work professionals who may be involved in the design, implementation or evaluation of CCT programmes domestically or internationally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 it