MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7080128112 · doi:10.20372/nadre:17446

ASSESSMENT OF RURAL HOUSEHOLD POVERTY STATUS INANKOBERWOREDA

2025· article· en· W7080128112 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Academic Digital Repository of Ethiopia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsMinnow Environmental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyVulnerability (computing)Psychological interventionStratified samplingEducational attainmentAgricultureSocioeconomic statusRural area

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the vulnerability of rural households to poverty in Ankober Woreda, Ethiopia, using a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2024. A total of 100 households weres ampled through a two-stage stratified random sampling technique. The Cost of Basic Needs(CBN) app roach was employed to establish the poverty line, set at 1860 Birr per month per adult equivalent. The findings revealed that approximately 68% of the households were vulnerabletopoverty, with significant correlations identified between vulnerability and factors such as family size, education level, income, farm size, age, sex, and oxen ownership. The analysis indicated that larger family sizes and lower educational attainment increased thelike lihood of poverty, while higher incomes and farm sizes contributed to lower vulnerability. The study highlighted the pressing need for targeted interventions to alleviate poverty, particularly through enhancing educational opportunities and providing support for off-farmingincome-generating activities. Recommendations included implementing family planning programs, creating non-farm job opportunities, and establishing oxen health centers to improve agricultural productivity. This comprehensive approach aimed to reduce vulnerabilityandpromote sustainable poverty alleviation in the region.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Academic Digital Repository of EthiopiaSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207