MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123884370

The Dynamics of Poverty in Urban Ethiopia

2006· article· en· W3123884370 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tesfaye Alemayehu Gebremedhin

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyConsumption (sociology)WelfareEconomicsDependency ratioCasualQuarter (Canadian coin)Demographic economicsSocioeconomicsPanel dataDemographyGeographyEconomic growthEconometricsPolitical scienceSociologyPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper examines poverty in urban Ethiopia using household survey data for 1994 and 2000. Consumption poverty is found to be high, with an overall head count of 47 per cent, in 1994, and 40 per cent, in 2000. As monetary measures may not appropriately capture welfare in non-monetary dimensions of life, non-monetary indicators, such as, subjective welfare status, nutritional status of children and housing characteristics are also examined. The findings indicate that there is a significant association between consumption poverty and subjective welfare status, but a weak agreement in ranking of households. Non poor households, in terms of consumption, are found to enjoy better housing amenities. However, the association between consumption poverty and child nutritional status is not strong. Poverty dynamics is also analysed using transition matrices and multivariate regression techniques. It was found that over 58 per cent of panel households had experienced poverty at least once during the period. Of these, over half had been chronically poor. The poverty transition was also quite significant with over a quarter of households experiencing a change in their poverty status. The results also showed that households with higher dependency ratio and whose heads are self employed, casual workers, pensioners and unemployed have a lower probability of exiting poverty. Those that are educated and belong to major ethnic groups have a higher probability of exit. Similar factors are significant in affecting the probability of entry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207