Review of the Evidence: The Interface between Poverty, Livelihoods, Institutions, and Community Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to critically review the existing literature on the links or interfaces between poverty, livelihoods, institutions, and community development. This discussion gives a clear understanding of how poverty is created and gives a clue of how sustainable policy intervention could be developed. The study adopted the Sustainable Livelihood Approach as an overall theoretical framework that guides this discussion. The reviewed literature shows that there are strong and complex interfaces between poverty, livelihoods, institutions and community development and they influence each other in several ways. The interfaces between these concepts influence the choices and nature of livelihood strategies that people employ to pursue their livelihood outcomes. The livelihood outcomes may be positive or negative and it is determined by how these concepts are linked together. For instance, the existing empirical evidences shows that having access to livelihood assets, investment in infrastructure, presence of enabling policy and institution result in positive livelihood outcomes whereas lack of access to assets, increased vulnerabilities, low investment in infrastructures, lack of popular participation, poverty and weak policy and institution together result in adopting of failed livelihood strategies which in turn resulted in negative livelihood outcomes. Thus, to formulate policies, strategies and programs that can effectively address poverty and result in sustainable development, policy makers should consider and understand the connection between these concepts before the formulation of policy, strategies or programs. Without understand this it is difficult to formulate policies, programs, and strategies that can positively contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable development.
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 | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".