MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206264678 · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14644

Cash or Conditions? An Analysis of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs

2021· dissertation· en· W4206264678 on OpenAlexaff
Kerry O’Neill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptConditional cash transferCash transfersPovertyConditionalityPublic economicsCashState (computer science)EconomicsPolitical sciencePoliticsEconomic growthFinanceAccountingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Literature on cash transfers refer to conditional programs in a broader sense and include programs such as Employment Insurance (EI) which, among other things, is conditioned upon willingness to work and having met the hours of work threshold.What I refer to as CCTs are a distinct kind of conditional cash program that differs from that of EI as the former is an anti-poverty strategy aimed at increasing human capital investments in children.I make these distinctions clearer in Chapter 4.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare→French-language works237,207→