MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does Research Reduce Poverty? Assessing the Welfare Impacts of Policy‐oriented Research in Agriculture

2011· article· en· W4210960873 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Edoardo Masset, Rajendra Mulmi, Andy Sumner

Bibliographic record

VenueIDS Working Papers · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Development NetworkConsortium of International Agricultural Research CentersOverseas Development InstituteInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsPovertyAgricultureImpact assessmentScarcityContext (archaeology)Sustainable developmentWelfarePublic economicsEconomicsEconomic growthBusinessEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current context of the global financial crisis and its aftermath, development resources are likely to be getting scarcer. Resources for development research are too. The set of circumstances generating the resource scarcity is also putting pressure on development gains. More than ever before, every dollar spent on development research will have to count towards sustainable poverty reduction. However, the understanding of the impacts of development research on policy change and on poverty is weak at best, with agriculture being no different. The area of research impact is not a new area of enquiry but an emergent one. Our paper seeks to build on the work of others. It surveys the literature and identifies different ways of assessing the impact of ‘policy-oriented’ research. We then take the available literature on agriculture as a specific focus to survey. Our paper surveys the different types of ‘policy-oriented’ research; the literature on the ‘theories of change’ for policy research in international development; methodologies for analysing the impact of policy-oriented research; the relevant agriculture literature and outlines the types indicators that can be used for impact assessment of research with examples. The key findings are: • There is no standard practice for the evaluation of research projects and every evaluation strategy should be designed on a case-by-case basis. • It is possible to test research project impacts along some dimensions of social welfare (agricultural output, income or poverty) by finding the appropriate indicators (and methodology). The overall goal – welfare impacts of research – is highly desirable, but not always feasible. • When welfare assessment of research is not feasible, it is recommended that evaluators test intermediate outcomes. The articulation of the theory of change of the project allows testing critical links in the causal chain running from research to welfare.

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)0.248
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.411
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2480.411
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.019
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0150.017
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.213 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIDS Working PapersSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207