Replicating Success: A manual to alleviate poverty through peer training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Alleviating Poverty through Peer Training (APPT) project was one of the ILO?s technical cooperation programmes addressing the prejudices and barriers faced by people with disabilities when accessing training and employment opportunities. Implemented in Cambodia from October 2002 to September 2007, it aimed to increase the income levels of its clients residing in rural areas with limited training and employment prospects. To achieve this, the project used a methodology called ?Success Case Replication? (SCR). SCR is a simple method of village-based informal apprenticeships that involves villagers imparting their skills to a person or group through informal methods. Many income-generating and vocational training projects report that successful training graduates often train others in their skills. This approach is not unique. It is simple, straightforward and operates at the grassroots level. However, by systematizing and adding some components to the process, such as strengthening training or adding access to small grants or loans, the APPT approach to skills transfer increased the likelihood of success and income generation. This manual describes the core elements of the approach which was at the heart of the APPT project?s success. It is designed to assist organizations and agencies learn how to replicate or adapt the APPT project and the SCR approach that uses local entrepreneurs with proven income-generating activities and small businesses to train others in replicating their businesses. The success of the approach has generated increasing interest and several international and local NGOs in Cambodia have already started replicating it.This manual is part of the Replicating Success Tool Kit developed by the APPT project. Other tools supporting the manual include a video, Replicating success, the APPT database and Management Information System (MIS) used for tracking clients and evaluating the project impact and its accompanying Managing success: An instruction manual for the APPT database and Management Information System, as well as Training for success: A guide for peer trainers.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.049 |
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".