MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410144171 · doi:10.1080/19439342.2025.2499432

Impact of access to electricity on the well-being of rural households in Senegal

2025· article· en· W4410144171 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kadoukpè Gildas Magbondé, Djiby Thiam, Natascha Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Development Effectiveness · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsRural electrificationEconomic growthElectricityDevelopment economicsEconomicsBusinessGeographyPublic economicsSocioeconomicsElectrificationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the welfare impacts of rural electrification using a panel dataset from 1,115 rural households in Senegal, observed in 2016 and 2020. Combining the quasi-experimental methods of propensity score matching (PSM) and difference-in-differences (DiD), we show that electrified households increased their non-food expenditure and non-agricultural employment by 39.5% and 39.2%, respectively, compared to their counterfactual. Children in electrified households are 45.3% more likely to be enrolled in school, 44.7% more likely to attend school, and study 63.3% more, with the increase in school attendance being more pronounced for girls compared to boys. Furthermore, poor households and those that have access to a marketplace drew the most substantial benefits from access to electricity. In sum, the findings show that access to electricity increases household well-being and thus encourage the speeding-up of universal access to electricity in rural areas both with on-grid and off-grid technologies.

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)0.001
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Development EffectivenessSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207