MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1729984106 · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-2-3

A contingent valuation study to estimate the parental willingness-to-pay for childhood diarrhoea and gender bias among rural households in India

2004· article· en· W1729984106 on OpenAlexaff
Mo Amin, Farhana Khondoker

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCommonwealth Foundation
KeywordsWillingness to payContingent valuationSocioeconomic statusDemographyMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used contingent valuation technique to estimate the parental willingness to pay for an episode of diarrhoea among 324 children of both sexes aged between five and seven years in two rural villages of Chennai in India. The aim was to examine if there was any gender bias in the parental willingness to treat children for a diarrhoeal episode, and if so to what extent. The willingness to pay was specified as a hedonic function of the duration and severity of an episode, and of parents' socioeconomic characteristics. The findings suggest that parents were willing to pay more to protect their male child compared to the female child suffering from a diarrhoeal episode. The median willingness to pay to avoid an episode for male and female children were calculated at Rs. 33.7 (approx. US$ 0.72) and Rs. 25.2 (approx. US$ 0.54) respectively - a difference of around 34%. After adjusting for the greater duration and severity of the illness, it was found that the difference between the two medians increased to 51%.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.454
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.016 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Research Policy and SystemsSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207