MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406576299 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n6p1

Effects of Multiple Risks on Farm Income and Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Insurance: A Case Study of the Greater Accra Region in Ghana

2016· article· en· W2406576299 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frederick Murdoch Quaye

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureFarm incomeWillingness to payAgricultural economicsBusinessEconometric modelEconomicsAgricultural scienceSocioeconomicsGeographyEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the determinants of farm income among farmers producing crops and animals in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. It further estimates the willingness to pay for agricultural insurance by farmers. The farm income function was evaluated using a logarithmic function in which farm income is regressed as a function of determinants affecting it. The econometric results suggest that gender, education, farm size, farming experience, fertilizer usage and input cost all have a positive and statistically significant association with farm income. The results indicate that when investing in agriculture in the study region, weather hazards and pest and disease attacks are two important risk factors that need to be considered in the implementation of insurance policies since they have and statistically significant negative associations with farm income. The paper further observes that weather and pest/disease attacks are two significant risk factors that tend to influence farmers’ willingness to adopt and pay for agricultural insurance.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207