Analysis of Indigents Selection by the Community: A Construction Inequality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burkina Faso conducted a community selection of the indigent in eight health districts. The selection targeted 15% to 20% indigent per district. This study analyzed the data of this selection from the databases of the Ministry of Health. Descriptive analysis and time series modeling were performed. Indigents were predominantly female, heads of household were mostly elderly, and the average age of household members ranged from 21.9 to 29.8 years. The households were small. Indigents were mostly uneducated and employed. They all belonged to a given religious denomination, Muslims were the most numerous. The majority of the indigents were married and almost a quarter of them were widows. About 2% to 17% of indigents were selected depending on the district. Forecasts showed both an increase and a decrease in the use of health care by indigents. The study recommends considering the poverty level specific to each district when selecting, strengthening education policies targeting the indigent, improving the socio-health conditions of the indigent including specific actions considering age, sex and marital status, and the formulation of an employment policy targeting the indigent. Analyzes of the relationship between poverty and religion may allow the exploitation of religious capital for the benefit of the indigent.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".