Quality Improvements in Public Livestock Services Delivery: Are Farmers Ready to Pay? An Inquiry in South India
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farmers Willingness To Pay (WTP) for improving the quality of public livestock services delivery, in terms of Service Provider and Farmer Relationship (SPFR), chance of recovery from ailments and chance of conception following Artificial Insemination (AI), was assessed through Contingent Valuation (CV) in southern peninsular state of India, the Tamil Nadu State. The districts of the state were categorized as ‘Livestock Developed’ (LD) and ‘Livestock Under Developed’ (LUD) based on initial base line developed. Contingent Valuation (CV) approach and Tobit regressions were used to assess variations in the stated Willingness To Pay (WTP) values, and the probability of stating a positive WTP value for respondents who declared that they were not willing to pay. Overall, the respondents in the study area were willing to pay INR 3.91 for improving the SPFR attribute of the public veterinary centre, while they were ready to pay INR 5.84 for augmenting the chances of recovery from illness by the services of public veterinary centres. In order to benefit from improved chance of conception of their bovines after AI, the farmers were willing to pay INR 11.71. An absolute concordance on the levels of attributes and the variations in the stated positive WTP values for quality improvements was noticed. Tobit regression analyses on the improvements of all above attributes indicated that the farmers who were at disadvantaged levels of an attribute were willing to pay more compared to those at an advantaged level.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it