MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055890570 · doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00130

Estimating Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Quality in the Presence of Item Nonresponse Bias

2003· article· en· W2055890570 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMedical Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContingent valuationRespondentWillingness to payPayment cardNon-response biasSample (material)PaymentEconometricsMissing dataSelection biasQuality (philosophy)EstimationIdentification (biology)Valuation (finance)EconomicsStatisticsActuarial scienceMicroeconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article deals with the problem of item nonresponse in contingent valuation surveys using a payment‐card method, by applying a grouped‐data sample‐selection estimation technique that is capable of imputing the missing values conditional upon a respondent's decision to answer a willingness‐to‐pay question. The advantage of the technique lies in its ability to utilize all of the information in the sample, permitting a more efficient estimation in the presence of item nonresponse bias. The major determinants of willingness to pay appear to be household income, number of children, education, perception of existing water quality, and identification with environmental issues.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.174 · 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