MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787559310 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n3p111

Satisfaction Levels of Insured Apricot Producers towards Agricultural Insurance Services

2018· article· en· W2787559310 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mehmet Hasdemir, Haşim Özüdoğru

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentCustomer satisfactionLikert scaleBusinessMarketingStructural equation modelingProduction (economics)AgricultureAgricultural scienceEconomicsMathematicsFinanceStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research was to assess satisfaction levels of the insured farmers towards TARSİM agricultural insurance services. The study was conducted on the farmers engaged in apricot production in Malatya province of Turkey, the world’s largest provider of apricots. About 69.88% of Turkey’s dried apricot production and about 73.44% of the world dried apricot production are based in Malatya. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with a random sample of 187 farmers. Likert scale questionnaires were used to collect opinion data of farmers on five dimensions, namely sales and marketing, damage compensation, pricing and payment policy, customer notification and customer representation. Structural equation modeling was used to explore the association between the measured variables and overall satisfaction levels. The results of structural equation modeling indicated that all dimensions had statistically significant effects on farmer satisfaction. Additionally, according to the standard estimations, satisfaction from sales and marketing, satisfaction from customer notification and satisfaction from damage compensation were the most significant determinants of customer satisfaction. Pricing and payment policy had the lowest influence on farmer satisfaction. The study results showed that efficient and rapid resolution of farmer problems and grant of ease for premium payments were the most influential factors affecting farmer satisfaction.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgricultural and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207