Microfinance Engagements of the ‘Graduated’ TUP members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the slogan of ‘credit for the poorest of the poor’, the poorest have not fully benefited from the microfinance revolution of the late 90s in Bangladesh. To bring these ‘left out’ group into the mainstream microfinance, BRAC’s CFPR/TUP program assists them to build-up an asset base (physical, human and social) so that they can have meaningful participation in microfinance activities. After the ‘grant’ phase of the program which lasts for 18 months, as the first step towards the ‘graduation process’, the ultra-poor women form their own groups and are offered small amounts of credit. This study takes a look at the beneficiaries who were selected in the first round in 2002 to explain various dimensions of their engagement with microfinance. With a lower borrower-member ratio and relatively smaller sized credit, microfinance for the poorest may take longer to achieve sustainability. Even within the ultra-poor household group, the better-off ones are more likely to engage themselves with microfinance. Their engagement in semi-formal microfinance does not reduce involvement in the informal financial market. Along with credit, accumulating savings is of utmost importance for the ultra-poor households and their informal savings have increased. Given that almost a quarter of the TUP members may not be credit takers, the importance of appropriate savings products cannot be overemphasized. More innovations in this regard are thus critical.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".