MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1565024437

Monetary Incentives to Reduce Open-Field Rice-Straw Burning in the Plains of Nepal

2013· preprint· en· W1565024437 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Krishna Prasad Pant

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of PeradeniyaInternational Development Research CentreDirektoratet for UtviklingssamarbeidStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsIncentivePaymentGreenhouse gasStrawBusinessUnit (ring theory)Agricultural economicsOrder (exchange)Natural resource economicsEconomicsMathematicsFinanceAgronomyMarket economyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In southern Nepal, rice straw burning in open fields is common practice. This is problematic because biomass burning contributes to smoke, black carbon and greenhouse gases. While some studies have examined the reasons for burning, few have tried to identify incentives that might stop farmers from burning. In this study, we use a uniform price unitsupply reverse auction, followed by an actual payment, in order to measure the amount of incentive required to stop smallholder farmers from burning rice straw. 317 farmers from 18 villages in Rupandehi and Kapilvastu districts participated in the reverse auction and signed an agreement to avoid burning for a payment. About 86 percent of the farmers fully complied with the agreement for a median payment of NPR 5, 610 per ha (USD 78/ha). We also assessed the factors affecting the bid amount and compliance with the agreement. The supply of ecosystem services by the farmers through avoided burning is unit elastic, indicating that there is a linear relationship between monetary incentives and avoided burning.

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)0.005
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies)Same topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207