Multiple Shocks and Risk Management Strategies among Rural Households in Zambia’s Mazabuka District
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to document the kinds of shocks or set-backs and events that commonly cause households to become poorer or destitute and the kinds of risk management strategies they utilize in order to prevent, mitigate or cope with the shocks. The study was conducted in Magobbo area which is located in Mazabuka District in Zambia’s Southern Province using qualitative research methods and techniques. The results show that the majority Magobbo households face multiple covariant and idiosyncratic shocks which have led to downward economic mobility or increased poverty. Some of the shocks include market access challenges caused by market liberalization policies; increased morbidity and mortality due to the HIV and AIDS pandemic and other diseases; adverse consequences of climate change and deterioration of the natural resources; adverse consequences of family breakdown caused by spousal abandonment, divorce and widowhood. The study results also show that the households practice several coping mechanisms to address shocks and set-backs that affect them. These coping mechanisms include a range of prevention, mitigation and coping strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".