MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559063672 · doi:10.1017/s1068280500001866

Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvements in the United States and Canada: Considering Possibilities for International Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer

2010· article· en· W1559063672 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert J. Johnston, Paul J. Thomassin

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Resource Economics Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsWillingness to payMultinational corporationMeta-analysisMetadataQuality (philosophy)Public economicsPreferenceConjoint analysisEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental economicsEconomicsBusinessComputer scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a multinational meta-analysis estimated to identify systematic components of willingness to pay for surface water quality improvements, developed to support benefit transfer for Canadian policy development. Metadata are drawn from stated preference studies that estimate WTP for water quality changes affecting aquatic life habitats—a type of study with few Canadian examples. The goals of this paper are to assess the properties of a multinational (United States/Canada) meta-analysis compared to a single-country (U.S.) analog; illustrate the potential information that may be derived as well as the analytical challenges; and assess the performance of resulting meta-functions for benefit transfer.

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)0.142
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.240
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1420.240
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.017
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.147 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainMethods
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

Citations59
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Resource Economics ReviewSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207