MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962176516 · doi:10.35536/lje.2005.v10.i1.a2

Child Labor’s Link with Literacy and Poverty in Pakistan

2005· article· en· W2962176516 on OpenAlexaff
Imran Ashraf Toor

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œLahore journal of economics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPer capita incomeLiteracyEconomicsWelfareDeveloping countryEducational attainmentPer capitaDemographic economicsLabour economicsEconomic growthPopulationSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In developing countries, children have long been largely ignored in public policy-making and the development of program strategies for improving their welfare. The complex issue of child labor is a developmental issue worth investigating. The notion that children are being exploited and forced into labor, while not receiving education crucial to development, concerns many people. This study focuses on child labor in Pakistan with two main objectives. We first estimate the prevalence of child labor in the 100 districts of Pakistan and then examine the hypothesis that child labor is significantly higher in districts that have a higher incidence of poverty and lower level of educational attainment. The results show that child labor has a negative relationship with the literacy rate both 10-14 year age and 15 years and above. There is a negative but insignificant relationship with per capita income and Deprivation Index in the case of male child labor. The study proved that literacy rate and per capita income has influenced negatively on female child labor.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œLahore journal of economicsSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207