MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119424129 · doi:10.5430/rwe.v12n1p120

Income Diversification and Economic Welfare of Rural Households in the Volta Region of Ghana

2021· article· en· W3119424129 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kwabena Asomanin Anaman, Kinsley Delanyo Adjei

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in World Economy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)WelfareEconomicsHousehold incomeDemographic economicsSocioeconomicsStandard of livingNet national incomeLabour economicsGeographyBusinessGross income

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We established the factors influencing income diversification, and the linkage between income diversification and economic welfare of rural households, in the Volta Region of Ghana, using data from 894 randomly-selected households, obtained through the latest round of the Ghana Living Standards Survey undertaken by the Ghana Statistical Service from October 2016 to October 2017. The overall household income diversification, measured by the Simpson Index was positively influenced by the age of the household head, remittances received by the household, and the size of the household. Using another measure of diversification, the number of income-based activities (NIBA), we established that the age of the household head influenced NIBA in a cubic fashion, similar to an S-shaped curve. Income diversification declined at very young ages from 17 to 31 years; it then increased from 31 years to 74 years before declining during the household head’s advanced age and retirement period. The positive drivers of NIBA included moderate levels of formal educational attainment, remittance, household size and electricity connection. We showed that income diversification influenced economic welfare only when used at moderate to high levels.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in World EconomySame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207