MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118406791 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.201133

Assessing Asnaf Readiness for Conditional Cash Transfer Adoption in Malaysia: A Descriptive Analysis

2025· article· W7118406791 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Suffian Mohamed Esa, Salmy Edawati Yaacob, Hairunnizam Wahid, Nor Ayuni Mohamad Zulkifli

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
KeywordsDescriptive statisticsConditional cash transferCashTransfer (computing)Statistical analysisDescriptive research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to descriptively analyse the perceptions of asnaf regarding their readiness for Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) adoption in Malaysia.Its originality lies in examining zakat cash recipients' perspectives, representing the first attempt to develop a CCT model within zakat distribution and integrate behavioural conditionalities including religiosity, education, health, and employment.The study surveyed 369 heads of households classified as poor or needy asnaf who received cash assistance from zakat institutions in the Federal Territory, Kedah, and Terengganu, selected to reflect variations in governance structures and zakat distribution practices.Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, frequency analysis, cross-tabulation and Pearson's Chi-square test to check compliance trends across states and asnaf categories.Findings indicate strong overall acceptance of behavioural conditionalities, with the highest compliance observed in religious practices and the greatest challenges in employment.The findings highlight the need for differentiated strategies in zakat-based CCT programs, combining soft conditionalities for generally compliant recipients and hard conditionalities for those requiring stricter enforcement.The study demonstrates the potential of zakat-based CCT models to enhance asnaf compliance, promote human capital and spiritual development, and support socio-economic empowerment and long-term poverty alleviation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207