MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362661894 · doi:10.4337/9781800883451.00040

Measuring child poverty

2023· book-chapter· en· W4362661894 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucia Ferrone, Alessandro Carraro

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyChild povertyEconomicsWelfareQuarter (Canadian coin)Development economicsPopulationBasic needsExtreme povertyNatural disasterDemographic economicsEconomic growthGeographyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children constitute about one quarter of the world population. Globally, children are more likely to be poor than adults. In fact, estimates say that they are over twice as likely to be poor as adults. It is estimated that in 2017 17.5% children lived in poverty, vis à vis 7.9% of adults. Child Poverty is also a widespread phenomenon, in low as in high income countries, Child poverty has many long-lasting consequences on children’s lives and future opportunities. Additionally, poor children are more vulnerable to shocks of various kind, including shocks from extreme weather and natural disasters, and from conflict and violence. Measuring child poverty is therefore of crucial importance to implement effective policies. Monetary poverty provides the obvious tool to measure child poverty. However, this does not come without challenges, as monetary aggregates are calculated at the household level, and disregard intra-household inequalities. Moreover, equivalence scales conventionally used to calculate monetary poverty can substantially underestimate child poverty. Accompanying monetary with multidimensional measures of child poverty can provide a more comprehensive and realistic picture of children’s welfare.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.006

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooksSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207