MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244012713 · doi:10.5089/9781451828078.002

Malawi: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Annual Progress Report

2005· article· en· W4244012713 on OpenAlexfundno aff
International Monetary Fund

Bibliographic record

VenueIMF Staff Country Reports · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMega-projects of Science Research for the 10th Five-Year PlanDirektoratet for UtviklingssamarbeidConstruction Industry CouncilMinistry of EconomyJapan International Cooperation AgencyDepartment for International DevelopmentDanish International Development AgencyManitoba Health Research CouncilEuropean CommissionMinistry of Education, Science and TechnologyUnited Nations Development ProgrammeMachine Tool Engineering Foundation
KeywordsPoverty reductionReduction (mathematics)PovertyDevelopment economicsEconomicsEconomic growthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes key findings of the second progress report on Malawi’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). The second progress report has focused on assessing inputs, outputs, and to some extent outcomes of the implementation of the strategy. In terms of inputs, this report analyzes expenditure by pillars, protected pro-poor activities, and functional analysis of government expenditure pattern. The outputs and outcomes analysis are presented in the report by comparing the planned activities and their targets outlined in the strategy to the actual progress and targets achieved over the second year of the implementation period.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.016

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIMF Staff Country ReportsSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207