MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385400461 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.180706

The Cost of Inaction: A Portrait of Street Beggars in Medan City

2023· article· en· W4385400461 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Indra Muda, Ramadhan Harahap, Muryanto Amin, Heri Kusmanto

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortraitArtBusinessArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poverty remains a pervasive problem in many cities, resulting in a large population of homeless people and beggars.This study examines the management of street beggars in Medan City, Indonesia, and finds that the current approach has not been effective in addressing the issue.Despite the existence of a regional regulation prohibiting homelessness and begging, the practice continues to persist, especially among children.The cost of managing street beggars is still relatively low, and the services provided are inadequate to meet their needs.Moreover, the local government's response is limited to appeals and temporary detention, rather than longterm solutions.The study used a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys of street beggars and government officials.The data revealed a complex picture of the challenges and opportunities in managing street begging, including the need for more comprehensive and coordinated services for homeless people and beggars, as well as greater public awareness and involvement in the issue.The findings suggest that a more holistic and inclusive approach is needed to address the root causes of poverty and homelessness, and to provide a sustainable solution for street beggars in Medan City.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→