MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154361378 · doi:10.1017/s1355770x14000503

Does payment type affect willingness-to-pay? Valuing new seed varieties in India

2014· article· en· W2154361378 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Development Economics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaFirst Nations Health and Social Secretariat of ManitobaAssembly of First NationsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentCashValuation (finance)IncentiveBusinessAffect (linguistics)EconomicsWillingness to payActuarial scienceFinanceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cash is often used in economic experiments as an incentive to encourage realistic decision making or to compensate participants for their time. However, in many less developed countries, remunerating participants with cash can upset existing relationships with local institutions. In cases where the use of cash is not feasible, an alternative type of payment is required. Using a framed field experiment in Odisha, India (formerly Orissa), we explore an alternative payment method, in-kind, where typical household items are used in place of cash. We compare the differences in the valuation of yield stabilizing seed traits between in-kind and cash. Our results suggest that farmers are willing to pay less for seeds when they are paid cash than when they are paid in-kind. Bids are higher by 1.18 Indian Rupees when farmers are paid in-kind, corresponding to about a 7 per cent higher valuation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.150 · 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