Social programs and transfers: Are we learning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Documents the historical context for the current cash transfer programs in South Africa, examines evidence concerning the aggregate impact of these cash transfers on poverty levels, and argues for a stronger focus on active labor market policies to complement the extensive system of cash transfers. There are two separate aspects of social security: the insurance concept (social insurance) and the redistribution concept (social assistance). In some respects, South Africa is an exceptional case for a developing country in the extent of its social assistance provision, with cash transfers going to more than a quarter of the population. It is a middle-income country with almost no public debt, so the cash transfer programs are financed from tax revenue rather than donor funding or borrowing. The immediate objective of cash transfer programs is to alleviate hardship among vulnerable groups, and reduction in poverty over the postapartheid period has been strongly associated with the expansion of social grants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".