MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391765013 · doi:10.1257/rct.977-3.1

Senegal Behavior Change Campaign & Solar Lights Evaluation

2015· dataset· en· W4391765013 on OpenAlexaff
Arndt Reichert, Víctor Orozco-Olvera, Aidan Coville

Bibliographic record

VenueAEA Randomized Controlled Trials · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersLeibniz-Gemeinschaft
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues.An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished.The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly.The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors.They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Policy Research Working Paper 9009This paper provides an explanation for why many information campaigns fail to affect decision-making.The authors experimentally show that a large information intervention about a profitable and climate-friendly household investment had limited effects if it only provided generic data.In contrast, it caused households to make new investments when it followed a campaign strategy designed to minimize information processing costs.This finding is consistent with a model of selective attention, where individuals prioritize information believed to be valuable after accounting for the costs of attending to the data that arise due to limited mental energy and time.The paper studies a range of possible mechanisms and finds corroborative evidence of selective attention as an inhibitor to learning.This paper is a product of the Development Impact Evaluation Group, Development Economics.It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.027

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAEA Randomized Controlled TrialsSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207