MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4328026867 · doi:10.34196/ijm.00270

Simulations of Policy Responses and Interventions to Promote Inclusive Adaptation to and Recovery from the COVID-19 Crisis in Ghana

2022· article· en· W4328026867 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Psychological interventionAdaptation (eye)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPolitical scienceSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Development economicsPsychologyMedicineEconomicsVirologyPsychiatryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assess the impact of COVID-19 shocks on household welfare and the effectiveness of select policies implemented to reduce their impact on welfare in Ghana.We adopt a microsimulation approach to assess the effects of COVID-19 on household welfare.Welfare fell by 34.2% to 41.9% between March and June 2020.Over the same period, the poverty headcount and the Gini index increased by 9 to 10.5 percentage points and 0.4 to 0.6 points respectively.The number of poor people increased by 2.8 to 3.2 million.The hardest-hit sector was education, with agriculture, forestry and fishing, trade and repairs, manufacturing, and other services also affected.The effects vary for men, women and children.While women experienced the largest decline in welfare, men experienced the highest increase in poverty incidence.The three policies selected reduced poverty marginally but were unable to offset the increase in poverty that occurred between March and June.The estimated cost of the three policies is GHS3.7 billion excluding administrative costs, which equates to approximately 1% of 2020 GDP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→