MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292295149 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15080366

Factors Influencing the Take-Up of Agricultural Insurance and the Entry into the Mutual Fund: A Case Study of the Czech Republic

2022· article· en· W4292295149 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sofia Kislingerová, Jindřich Špička

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterstvo Zemědělství
KeywordsDistrustAgricultureBusinessActuarial scienceDescriptive statisticsRisk managementCzechCrop insuranceEmpirical researchProduction (economics)EconomicsPublic economicsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the study was to identify the main factors influencing farmers’ willingness to take up agricultural insurance and participate in a mutual fund for non-insurable risks in the Czech Republic. Responses from 214 representative farms were processed using descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, binary logistic regression, and contingency analysis. The regression model showed the influences of agricultural area, distrust in insurance companies, the probability of losing more than 20% of production, the price of insurance premiums, and having a developed formal strategy on the likelihood of taking up agricultural insurance. Unlike previous empirical studies, this study did not attempt to look at agricultural insurance as an isolated risk management tool but rather to show the interrelationship between farmers’ decisions to join a mutual fund and their choice of agricultural insurance. Farmers expect most agricultural production risks to become significantly more important. With the ongoing economic crisis in the EU, there is growing pressure to reduce ad hoc public spending on coverage of non-insurable risks and to seek alternative solutions. The study also shows the need for a holistic approach to the design of risk management support systems in EU countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207