MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007338599 · doi:10.5539/sar.v4n2p92

Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Cassava Flour Inclusion in Bread, a Case Study of Lagos State, Nigeria

2015· article· en· W2007338599 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E. A. Erih, Oni O. A., Ayodele Fashogbon

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to payInclusion (mineral)RespondentContingent valuationAgricultural scienceSocioeconomicsEconomicsBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The study was conducted to address the issue of consumers’ willingness to pay for inclusion of cassava flour in bread in Lagos State. The data were collected randomly from a sample of 300 respondents in the state through the use of a well structured questionnaire. The contingent valuation method was adopted to estimate both the mean willingness to pay of consumers and the factors that affect their willingness to pay and these were analyzed using the bivariate probit model. The most significant model was the 10percent cassava flour inclusion as it has the highest number of significant variables (eight) followed by 20percent cassava flour inclusion with seven significant variables and 30 and 40percent cassava flour inclusion with six significant variables each. The factors that influenced consumers’ willingness to pay for CCW bread were the respondent’s age, gender, respondents’ awareness, married respondents, respondents with head position<em>,</em>and bread share which is the<em> </em>proportion of respondents income spent on bread to total income. The mean willingness to pay for bread with an inclusion of cassava flour at 10, 20, 30, and 40percent cassava flour inclusion were ?172.70, ?165.00, ?154.07, and ?142.78 respectively for initial bid while the mean willingness-to-pay at 10, 20, 30, and 40percent cassava flour inclusion were ?180.20, ?150.41, ?143.35, and ?127.36 respectively for subsequent bid. Arising from the result of this study, birth control policies were recommended among respondents in the study area.</p>

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207