Identifying and Characterizing the Poorest Urban Population Using National Household Surveys in 38 Cities in Sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying and classifying poor and rich groups in cities depends on several factors. Using data from available nationally representative surveys from 38 sub-Saharan African countries, we aimed to identify, through different poverty classifications, the best classification in urban and large city contexts. Additionally, we characterized the poor and rich groups in terms of living standards and schooling. We relied on absolute and relative measures in the identification process. For absolute ones, we selected people living below the poverty line, socioeconomic deprivation status and the UN-Habitat slum definition. We used different cut-off points for relative measures based on wealth distribution: 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60%. We analyzed all these measures according to the absence of electricity, improved drinking water and sanitation facilities, the proportion of children out-of-school, and any household member aged 10 or more with less than 6 years of education. We used the sample size, the gap between the poorest and richest groups, and the observed agreement between absolute and relative measures to identify the best measure. The best classification was based on 40% of the wealth since it has good discriminatory power between groups and median observed agreement higher than 60% in all selected cities. Using this measure, the median prevalence of absence of improved sanitation facilities was 82% among the poorer, and this indicator presented the highest inequalities. Educational indicators presented the lower prevalence and inequalities. Luanda, Ouagadougou, and N'Djaména were considered the worst performers, while Lagos, Douala, and Nairobi were the best performers. The higher the human development index, the lower the observed inequalities. When analyzing cities using nationally representative surveys, we recommend using the relative measure of 40% of wealth to characterize the poorest group. This classification presented large gaps in the selected outcomes and good agreement with absolute measures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".