Determinant factors of fishermen income and decision-making for providing welfare insurance: An application of multinomial logistic regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a country surrounded by the ocean, Indonesia is categorized as a country that has marine potential. The fishermen communities’ economy depends on ocean. However, the fishermen communities live below the poverty line and their average income is less than regional minimum wage. In conjunction with the issue, this study seeks to investigate the factors affecting the income of fishermen communities and right decision to fishermen in covering with welfare insurance in Cirebon, Indonesia. The quantitative study is designed using cross-sectional approach. The data collected by applying random sampling with open-ended questions and interview. A total of 100 fishermen’s have participated in this study. The study used some factors in measuring the fishermen community income, namely coastal environment condition, fish catching technology and location, operational capital, climate (season) condition, fishermen’s age, fishermen’s education, and fishing experience. The data are analyzed using the multinomial logistic regression model by assisting the statistical software, i.e., SPSS-23. The results show that coastal environment condition, fish catching technology and location, operational capital, climate (season) condition, fishermen’s age, fishermen’s education, and fishing experience have significant effects on fishermen income. Interestingly, the factor of coastal environment condition and climate (season) condition have significant negative effects on fishermen income. In conclusion, this study identified that two important factors reduced the welfare level of fishermen (via income). Also, in line with that things, the right decision which can provide to support and assist the fishermen community was by providing the welfare insurance. It is purposely to give them the protection from various risks faced by fishermen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".