Remittances and food security: A study of the global south
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International remittances to developing countries attract increasing attention because of their rise in volume and their impact on the recipient countries.Receiving remittances from outside the country has become a household coping strategy that might reduce poverty, alleviate hunger, promote better diets and increase productive investments.The main purpose of this study is to investigate the link between receiving remittances and the food security status in the Global South countries.This is the first study that examines the association between food security and receiving remittances by using the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) for individuals in the Global South.Data were obtained from the 2017 Gallup World Poll (GWP), which interviewed face-to-face 68,463 individuals in more than 60 countries.We have found a significant association between receiving remittances and food security.In the unadjusted logistics regression, irrespective of geography, severe food insecurity was significantly related to not receiving remittances (OR=1.532;P= 0.000).Although receiving remittances seems to positively affect the food security status of individuals in the GS, the association might not apply to all countries in the analyzed sample.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".