MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963876625 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6764730

Examining the Association Between Household Enrollment in the <i>Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program</i> (4Ps) and Wasting and Stunting Status Among Children Experiencing Poverty in the Philippines: A Cross-Sectional Study

2023· other· en· W6963876625 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastingSocioeconomic statusPovertyOddsLogistic regressionConditional cash transferCluster (spacecraft)Conditional logistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed whether enrollment in a national conditional cash transfer program was associated with wasting and stunting among children experiencing extreme poverty in the Philippines. Data were drawn from cross-sectional surveys collected from 10 regional areas in the Philippines between April 2018 and May 2019. A total of 2945 children aged between 6 months and 12 years comprised the analytical sample. Multilevel logistic regression was conducted to estimate the association between enrollment in Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) and stunting and wasting, controlling for sociodemographic factors and clustering by region. There was no meaningful association between household enrollment in 4Ps and the wasting status of children, but enrollment in 4Ps was associated with lower odds of stunting and differed by geography type. Findings suggest that the current design of 4Ps may not address sudden shocks that contribute to wasting, but may address the underlying socioeconomic risk factors associated with stunting.

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)0.002
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207