Risk Attitudes, Social Interactions, and the Willingness to Pay for Genotyping in Dairy Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bovine Mastitis is one of the most prevalent and costly production diseases in the dairy industry in Canada and worldwide causing major animal welfare problems, environmental problems, and productivity losses. In this paper, we examine the effects of risk attitudes and social interactions on the willingness to pay (WTP) for genotyping animals for susceptibility to a chronic mastitis trait. We use contingent valuation with double bounded dichotomous choice questions to elicit producers’ WTP. The estimated mean WTP for genotyping is approximately $50 per animal. Compared to the current market prices of commercially available comprehensive genotyping services, this estimate suggests a significant market potential for genotyping to be bundled with economically important disease traits. We also find evidence that both risk attitudes and social interactions have strong effects on the WTP for genotyping. Farmers with higher risk tolerance are willing to pay more for genotyping service. For dairy farmers with more concern about mastitis, risk tolerance has no significant effect on the WTP, while social interactions have a significant effect on the WTP. We also find a strong interaction effect between risk tolerance and social interactions. The findings encourage interest in questions about how risk attitudes, social networks, and their interactions shape the adoption of and the WTP for a novel agricultural technology. La mastite bovine est la maladie de production la plus répandue et la plus coûteuse de l'industrie laitière au Canada et mondialement causant des problèmes en ce qui concerne le bien‐être des animaux, l'environnement et la perte de productivité. Cet article examine les effets de l'attitude à l′égard du risque et des interactions sociales concernant la volonté de payer pour le génotypage d'animaux pour le dépistage de la susceptibilité à posséder le trait de mastite chronique. L'évaluation contingente avec questions à double proposition dichotomique a été utilisée afin d'obtenir la volonté de payer des producteurs. La volonté moyenne estimée de payer pour le génotypage s'élève à approximativement 50 $ par animal. Comparée aux prix courants du marché pour les services commerciaux complets de génotypage, cette estimation suggère un potentiel commercial significatif pour grouper le génotypage à d'autres traits de maladie d'importance économique. Nous trouvons aussi trouvé que les attitudes à l′égard du risque et les interactions sociales avaient un impact significatif sur la volonté de payer pour le génotypage. Les fermiers démontrant une grande tolérance au risque sont disposés à payer plus pour les services de génotypage. Pour les producteurs laitiers préoccupés par la mastite, la tolérance vis‐à‐vis du risque n'a aucun effet sur la volonté de payer, tandis que les interactions sociales en ont une importante. Nous notons aussi un effet significatif d'interaction entre la tolérance pour le risque et les interactions sociales. Les résultats favorisent un questionnement au sujet des attitudes à l′égard du risque, des réseaux sociaux et de leurs interactions, cherchant comment ces derniers guideront l'adoption de nouvelles technologies agricoles et la volonté d'en acquérir.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".