MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394014159 · doi:10.1080/10875549.2024.2338164

Household Consumption Expenditure Determinants Across Poverty Subgroups in Sub-Sahara Africa: Evidence from the Ghanaian Living Standard Survey

2024· article· en· W4394014159 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Agyepong, Ametus Kuuwill, Jude Ndzifon Kimengsi, Kwabena Nkansah Darfor, Samuel Ampomah, Kulu Evans, Abel Gbogbolu, Gideon Nunana Attado, Ahiaklo Kofi Charles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Poverty · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyConsumption (sociology)Standard of livingSocioeconomicsEconomicsGeographyDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsEconomic growthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses data from the Ghana Living Standards Survey 2016/2017 to examine household consumption variations across different poverty subgroups. Non-poor households display significantly higher expenditures than poor and extremely poor counterparts. Contributing factors include older married male heads, larger family sizes, and rural locations with limited education. Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition highlights characteristic effects in consumption disparities. While endorsing fertility reduction policies, caution is urged against extremist approaches that may worsen poverty since the extremely poor depend on household labor. Recognizing the importance of location and employment sectors is crucial for targeted economic development in both urban and rural areas.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PovertySame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207