Bayesian synthetic prediction of state level poverty using Indian Household Consumer Expenditure Survey Data1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal 1 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations member States in 2015, is to end poverty in all forms everywhere. The major indicator to monitor the goal is the so-called headcount ratio or poverty rate, i.e., proportion or percentage of people under poverty. In India, where nearly a quarter of population still live below the poverty line, monitoring of poverty needs greater attention, more frequently at shorter intervals (e.g., every year) to evaluate the effectiveness of planning, programs and actions taken by the governments to eradicate poverty. Poverty rate computation for India depends on two basic ingredients – rural and urban poverty lines for different states and union territories and average Monthly Per-capita Consumer Expenditure (MPCE). While MPCE can be obtained every year, usually from the Consumer Expenditure Survey on shorter schedules with a few exceptions where the information is obtained from another survey, determination of poverty lines is a highly complex, costly and time-consuming process. Poverty lines are essentially determined by a panel of experts who draws their conclusions partly based on their subjective opinions and partly based on data from multiple sources. The main data source the panel uses is the Consumer Expenditure Survey data with a detailed schedule, which are usually available every five years or so. In this paper, we undertake a feasibility study to explore if estimates of headcount ratios or Poverty Ratios in intervening years can be provided in absence of poverty lines by relating poverty ratios with average MPCE through a statistical model. Then we can use the fitted model to predict poverty rates for intervening years based on average MPCE. We explore a few in this work models using Bayesian methodology. The reason behind calling this ‘synthetic prediction’ rests on the synthetic assumption of model invariance over years, often used in the small area literature. While the data-based assessment of our Bayesian synthetic prediction procedure is encouraging, there is a great potential for improvements on the models presented in this paper, e.g., by incorporating more auxiliary data as they become available. In any case, we expect our preliminary work in this important area will encourage researchers to think about statistical modeling as a possible way to at least partially solve a problem for which no objective solution is currently available.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".