MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995410128

Exploring changes in the lives of the ultra poor: an exploratory study on CFPR/TUP members

2004· other· en· W2995410128 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBRAC University Institutional Repository (BRAC University) · 2004
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAga Khan Foundation Canada
KeywordsExploratory researchSociologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since January 2002, BRAC has started a new experimental programme for the
\nultra poor called, 'Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction/Targeting the
\nUltra Poor' (CFPRffUP). This programme targets the ultra poor who are either
\nbypassed or fail to benefit and subsequently drop out from existing development
\nprogramme. The programme uses an asset-based approach where physical assets
\nare provided to the selected ultra poor women as grants. The intervention strategy
\nalso includes health and social development components. The overall idea of the
\nprogramme is to strengthen the physical, social and human asset base of the ultra
\npoor so that once the grant phase is over, they can attain the foundation for
\nsustainable livelihoods, and participate and benefit from mainstream development
\nprogrammes. This paper is based on an exploratory study that wanted to better
\nunderstand the perceptions of change as defined by the programme members and
\nthe underlying factors that explain the changes perceived. The main finding is that
\ninitial conditions matter - households that owned homestead land, had other
\nsources of income, had adult male labour power and did not suffer from recurrent
\nhealth costs did better. The programme encouraged the members to save out of
\nthe income accrued from running the TUP enterprise, but the product was
\nfocussed on supporting the promotional needs rather than protectional needs. The
\ncircumstances of the ultra poor households differ and a sole focus on the .savings
\nfor meeting the promotional needs may thus need reconsideration .

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.153 · 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