MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939055498

Is the Multidimensional Poverty Index robust to different weights

2010· article· en· W2939055498 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sabina Alkire, María Emma Santos, Suman Seth, Gastón Yalonetzky

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und EntwicklungAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenUniversity of OxfordInternational Development Research CentreEconomic and Social Research CouncilInternational Fine Particle Research InstituteUnited Nations Development ProgrammeRobertson FoundationUNICEF
KeywordsPovertyIndex (typography)Human Development IndexEconometricsStatisticsHuman development (humanity)Computer scienceMathematicsEconomicsEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2010, the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report and OPHI released an international Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) that reflects multiple deprivations in education, health and living standard that people face at the same time. How robust is this index to the different choices made in its design? This brief presents the results of tests that show that the MPI rankings are robust to a range of plausible changes in weights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.373
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.373
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Same topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207