MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972917747

Rarity or Reality of Some Theories of Poverty in Explaining the Poverty in Africa

2019· article· en· W2972917747 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ernest Dube

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican cultural and philosophical studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyCulture of povertyBasic needsDevelopment economicsSociologyPanacea (medicine)Political scienceEconomic growthEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the causes of poverty in Africa and the use of theories as a roadmap to dealing with poverty in African settings. The African continent is characterised by widespread poverty that includes lack of access to basic needs (such as shelter, clothes, food, clean water and clean environment) in addition to lack of income, opportunities, freedoms and choices. The main aim of the study was to explain the relevance—rarity or reality—of the theories of poverty in dealing with poverty in Africa in general, and Zimbabwe in particular. This desktop research analysed the theory of individualism of poverty, Karl Marx’s capitalist theory and opportunity theory of poverty. Through document analysis involving 47 publications, the study found that the theory of individual poverty lacks relevance—is a rarity—in analysing poverty in Africa, whilst the Marxian theory and opportunity theory are highly relevant—are a reality—because of Africa’s colonial history and current invasion of Africa by multi-national corporations. The study concluded that some theories of poverty are a panacea to understanding development in Africa. The theories are important in understanding the nature, causes and interventions of poverty in general. As such, theories of poverty are both a rarity and a reality when it comes to understanding poverty in African settings, particularly in Zimbabwe. Keywords: Africa; rarity; reality; poverty; theories of poverty ___________________________ Rarete ou realite de certaines theories de la pauvrete pour expliquer la pauvrete en Afrique Cet article examine les causes de la pauvrete en Afrique et l'utilisation des theories comme feuille de route pour lutter contre la pauvrete dans les contextes africains. Le continent africain est caracterise par une pauvrete generalisee qui comprend le manque d'acces aux besoins de base (tels que le logement, les vetements, la nourriture, l'eau potable et un environnement propre) en plus du manque de revenus, d'opportunites, de libertes et de choix. L'objectif principal de l'etude etait d'expliquer la pertinence - rarete ou realite - des theories de la pauvrete dans la lutte contre la pauvrete en Afrique en general et au Zimbabwe en particulier. Cette recherche documentaire a analyse la theorie de l'individualisme de la pauvrete, la theorie capitaliste de Karl Marx et la theorie de l'opportunite de la pauvrete. A travers l'analyse de documents impliquant 47 publications, l'etude a revele que la theorie de la pauvrete individuelle manque de pertinence - est une rarete - dans l'analyse de la pauvrete en Afrique, tandis que la theorie marxienne et la theorie des opportunites est tres pertinente - est une realite - en raison de l'histoire coloniale de l'Afrique et de l'invasion actuelle de l'Afrique par des societes multinationales. L'etude a conclu que certaines theories de la pauvrete sont une panacee pour comprendre le developpement en Afrique. Les theories sont importantes pour comprendre la nature, les causes et les interventions de la pauvrete en general. En tant que telles, les theories de la pauvrete sont a la fois une rarete et une realite lorsqu'il s'agit de comprendre la pauvrete dans les contextes africains, en particulier au Zimbabwe. Mots-cles : Afrique ; rarete ; realite ; la pauvrete ; theories de la pauvrete

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicAfrican cultural and philosophical studiesFrench-language works237,207