MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W943891908 · doi:10.15453/0191-5096.3140

From "Poor" to "Not Poor": Improved Understandings and the Advantage of the Qualitative Approach

2006· article· en· W943891908 on OpenAlexaff
Eleanor Wint, Christine Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsGeorgian College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyQualitative researchIntervention (counseling)SociologyQualitative propertyCapability approachPoor peopleEconomic growthSocial psychologyPsychologySocial scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Re-analysis of qualitative data generated in six Country Poverty Assessments in the Caribbean, suggests that traditional ways of seeing the poor might well lead to unfair categorisation of a people who are unwilling to be seen as living in poverty. Use of qualitative data software was able to bring out new understandings of the conceptual difference between being poor and living in poverty. Wint and Frank suggest that this is a distinction which those responsible for designing and implementing poverty intervention strategies would be wise to bear in mind as it would allow for creative and timely use of community-based strengths.

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)0.011
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207