Factors Affecting the Willingness to Pay for the Protection of the Di River: an Approach Using the Box-Cox Double Hurdle Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Di River, located in West Africa between Burkina Faso and Mali, is a subject of concern to its users. Using econometric models of choice behavior, the determining factors of local populations’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the restoration of the riverbanks are either individual or collective variables. The latter variables imply that data collection focused on common characteristics of the population rather than intrinsic characteristics. Most determining factors have a positive effect on willingness to pay, which is especially observed with subjective or individual variables and reflects the very moderate investment that local populations are willing to make. However, that is also indicative of the potential to achieve sustainable management in such a way that personal factors contribute to increasing the WTP. In addition, the variable related to the level of education of a respondent reveals a willingness to pay a nonfinancial contribution for the restoration of the riverbanks and sustainable management of the resource.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it