Domestic and International Remittances and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amount of remittances to developing counties, defined as the flow of monetary and non-monetary goods, has increased globally and has surpassed the amount of money spent on foreign aid in these developing countries. The impact of remittances on households’ purchasing power has been studied; however, its link to food security status is yet to be explored. This paper quantitatively analyses the relationship between food security status (measured using the Food Insecurity Experience Scale) and the receipt of domestic/ international or both remittances on households in sub- Saharan Africa. Data are derived from the Gallup World Poll from the years 2014-2017. Multinomial logistic regression models and binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to analyze the data. Results showed that remittance recipients had significantly higher household incomes (especially if the remittance was coming internationally and domestically), lived with significantly more household members (7 or more members), and were more likely to be separated (including divorced or widowed). Households that received domestic remittances had significantly higher odds of being food insecure than households receiving no remittances. Conversely, households receiving remittances internationally or a combination of domestic and international remittances had significantly lower odds of food insecurity compared to non-receivers. This study found that receiving remittances affect the food security status of people living in SSA countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".