MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180794632 · doi:10.1111/cjag.12088

Factors Affecting Farmers’ Crop Insurance Participation in China

2015· article· en· W2180794632 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ming Wang, Ye Tao, Peijun Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCrop insuranceChinaBusinessAgricultureCropAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China's latest crop insurance program, launched in 2007, provides an excellent opportunity to explore the factors affecting farmers’ crop insurance purchase decisions, particularly decision making when crop insurance was first introduced into rural communities. This study surveyed all households in Kuangjiaqiao Village, Changde, Hunan Province, China over a four‐year period, from 2007 to 2010. Using basic regression models for cross‐sectional analysis and advanced models to consider lag effects, this study identifies the dominant factors influencing farmers’ crop insurance decisions. Results indicate farmers developed a dynamic adaptive process toward the new crop insurance. Farmers initially made relatively arbitrary decisions that were significantly influenced by community insistence or pressure to conform. Then, farmers gradually established more rational decision‐making mechanisms in which yield volatility, education, and engagement experience became statistically significant. The focus on the initial stages of the crop insurance program from this study helps improve our understanding of the demands within this rapidly growing market in China.

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)0.000
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 score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations43
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207