MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782939767 · doi:10.1186/s40100-018-0096-2

Gender differences in willingness to pay for capital-intensive agricultural technologies: the case of fish solar tent dryers in Malawi

2018· article· en· W2782939767 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Levison Chiwaula, Gowokani Chijere Chirwa, Lucy Binauli, J. Banda, Joseph Nagoli

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Food Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsWillingness to payContingent valuationFish <Actinopterygii>AgricultureBiddingValuation (finance)EconomicsEndowmentAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceBusinessMicroeconomicsFisheryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gender differences in fish processors’ willingness to pay for a group-owned fish solar tent dryer (FSTD) are being assessed by using the double hurdle model. Willingness to pay (WTP) responses from 382 randomly selected fish processors were elicited through a bidding game in a contingent valuation method. The findings show that the average probability that fish processors will be willing to pay was 74% (76% for females and 72% for males). Furthermore, the average level of WTP was US$29.45 (US$26.46 for females and US$33.51 for males). Females have a lower level of WTP than men because of their low endowment with assets that can assist them such as education, access to markets and productive assets. In view of these findings, the paper concludes that female fish processors have a higher probability of being willing to pay than male fish processors, but the levels of WTP are lower for female processors. The study suggests that when organising the community into cooperatives is possible, WTP for capital-intensive technologies can be assessed as contributions of individuals to the total cost of the technologies although the common property characteristic is suspected to lower the level of willingness to pay.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.129 · 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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Food EconomicsSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207