MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026822395 · doi:10.1111/agec.12592

Nudging farmers in crop choice using price information: Evidence from Ethiopian Commodity Exchange

2020· article· en· W3026822395 on OpenAlexaff
Dagim Belay, Hailemariam Ayalew

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Economics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodityEconomicsCropAgricultural economicsAgribusinessAgricultureForestryGeographyMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The lack of reference price information is often regarded as one of the most pervasive aspects of incomplete commodity markets in developing countries. Previous studies on the effects of price information emphasize the market participation and performance of rural households. This paper argues that access to reference price information influences farmers’ crop choice decisions, the most important decision in farming activity. The study exploits the variation in timing and spatial distance of the publicly run Ethiopian Commodity Exchange (ECX) price tickers as an indicator for variation in the intensity of access to reference price information among rural villages in Ethiopia. The paper finds that access to price information increases the average farm‐gate prices for traded commodities and incentivizes farmers to allocate more land, fertilizer and improved seeds to commodities traded in the ECX. It also nudges farmers to produce more of the traded commodities, increasing the output share of ECX‐traded commodities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural EconomicsSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207