MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229019268 · doi:10.1093/ej/ueac030

Environmental Adaptation of Risk Preferences

2022· article· en· W4229019268 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Salvatore Di Falco, Ferdinand M. Vieider

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Economic Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsDecision makerSubsistence agricultureAdaptation (eye)Variation (astronomy)Test (biology)Panel dataEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsEconometricsGeographyEcologyPsychologyBiologyManagement science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present incentivised panel data measuring risk preferences of subsistence farmers from across Ethiopia and pair them with rainfall data. We use these data to test the hypothesis that risk preferences may adapt to the environment of the decision maker. We find that rainfall shocks decrease risk tolerance for the same individuals over time. We also find that historical rainfall characteristics and geographical features can explain 40% of the variation in preferences across individuals. The time-changing effects are perfectly aligned with the geographical effects we document, painting a unified and highly coherent picture. This provides the first real-world evidence that preferences may systematically adapt to the environment of the decision maker.

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)0.004
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations43
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Economic JournalSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207