MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766107598 · doi:10.1017/s1355770x17000328

Households' responses to climate change: contingent behavior evidence from rural South Africa

2017· article· en· W2766107598 on OpenAlexaff
Wijaya Dassanayake, Sandeep Mohapatra, Martin K. Luckert, Wiktor Adamowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Development Economics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodCasualClimate changeEndogeneityEconomicsAgricultureSocioeconomicsGeographyDemographic economicsEconometricsEcologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate households' decisions regarding livelihood activities in response to future climate change in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. We use the contingent behavior method and account for unobserved heterogeneity in order to overcome problems associated with limited data, collinearity and endogeneity. We characterize the climate change with two types of climate change scenarios: dry-spells and wet-spells. Results show that moderate and extreme increases in dry-spells increase adoption of off-farm activities such as casual labor and small business, and decrease adoption of on-farm activities such as gardening. We find opposite cases for mild or moderate wet-spells. Our results also show that households tend to diversify their livelihood portfolios in response to a moderate increase in dry-spells and a mild increase in wet-spells. Some household characteristics are also important in influencing some types of activities, including household's health status, gender of the household head, and household's prior experience.

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)0.004
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Development EconomicsSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207