Vulnerability and assets in urban poverty: bringing together participatory methods and a sustainable livelihoods framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central aim of this study is to contribute to a fuller understanding of poverty by bringing together an analysis of the structural and institutional contexts in which poverty exists with an understanding of the everyday livelihood strategies used by households who are poor. This study goes beyond conventional income poverty measures by bringing together a sustainable livelihoods framework and participatory poverty assessment methods. Both of these approaches, primarily used in non-Western rural and urban settings, have been applied in a Canadian urban setting with low income households who use the emergency services of Project SHARE in Niagara Falls, Ontario. The sustainable livelihoods framework pays particular attention to structural and institutional issues which impact on livelihoods, drawing on the concepts of assets and vulnerability. The importance of assets in the lives of households is explored through in-depth structured interviews with 44 households who use Project SHARE's services. Assets are defined broadly to include household relations, health education, labour (including income), housing (including durable goods) and social networks. The extent of commoditization of public services and the coping strategies pursued by households are also examined. Participatory methods in the study of poverty invite those living in difficult circumstances to participate in an analysis of their own livelihood situation. A participatory poverty assessment has been facilitated with a small group of women who are members of the food co-op at Project SHARE. The Participatory Poverty Assessment explores issues of well-being, assets, the role of institutions, coping strategies and a community action plan. The contribution of both the exploration of assets and the Participatory Poverty Assessment are brought together in a discussion of livelihoods including issues of well-being, gender, social solidarity, capabilities and functionings, and the power of institutions. The combination of a sustainable livelihoods framework and a participatory poverty assessment has demonstrated the importance of non-material needs, uncovered unmet needs, demonstrated the importance of social relationships in sustaining livelihoods, added to an understanding of poverty as an inseparable interaction between means and ends, and demonstrated how the institution of welfare administration shapes and constrains the possibilities for livelihood well-being.
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 | 0.083 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".