Willingness-to-Pay for LNS Products: Evidence from the iLiNS Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Households' stated willingness-to-pay (WTP) for small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS) influence the economic viability of retail outlets for these products, and will guide public policy action when WTP falls short of LNS production/distribution costs. This presentation provides evidence on WTP for LNS products tested in the context of the International Lipid-Based Nutrient Supplements (iLiNS) Project in Malawi, Ghana and Burkina Faso. Methods: Field-based contingent valuation methods provide estimates of WTP for LNS for pregnant/lactating women (LNS-P&L) and for children 6-24 mo of age (LNS-child), and for their traditional alternatives. Experimental auctions provide incentive-compatible estimates of WTP for LNS-P&L (Ghana) and for LNS-child (Burkina Faso). Results: Average hypothetical WTP at baseline for LNS-child (one 20g sachet) was approximately US$0.39 (Ghana), US$0.23 (Burkina Faso) and US$0.20 (Malawi-DOSE). Average hypothetical WTP at baseline for LNS-P&L (one 20g sachet) was approximately US$0.61 (Ghana) and US$0.17 (Malawi-DYAD). Average experimental WTP for LNS-P&L (20g sachet) was, respectively, Conference
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".