MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385344491 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16080353

Do Farmers Demand Innovative Financial Products? A Case Study in Cambodia

2023· article· en· W4385344491 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qingxia Wang, Yim Soksophors, Khieng Phanna, Angelica Barlis, Shahbaz Mushtaq, Danny Rodulfo, Kees Swaans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralia-India Strategic Research FundAustralian Research Council
KeywordsBusinessProduct (mathematics)Psychological resilienceMarital statusAgricultureFinancial literacyMarketingFinanceGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines Cambodian farmers’ demand for weather index insurance (WII), an innovative financial product, for managing climate change-related risks. Rice and cassava farmers in Battambang Province of Cambodia were interviewed to understand their preferences for WII. We applied a binary logistic model to quantify the factors that influence farmers’ WII demand. We discovered that farmers’ marital status and off-farm labor are crucial factors that impact the demand for WII. More importantly, we also investigated gender differences, considering the critical role of women in the agricultural sector and personality differences between men and women. Our findings indicated that for male respondents, being married and having an additional off-farm laborer increase the probability of demand for WII by 72.6% and 36.8%, respectively. For female respondents, the education level is the most significant factor in making purchase decisions. An additional year of education increases the probability of WII demand by 5.0%. Generally, our results are consistent with some prior studies but inconsistent with others. This suggests that further research is necessary to understand the barriers associated with WII schemes and how to overcome them. Regardless, our study provides valuable insights for various stakeholders in implementing WII schemes, including financial professionals, insurance companies, communities, and governments, for designing more flexible WII products, improving farmers’ financial literacy, and providing effective post-event support to enhance farmers’ resilience to climate change.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicAgricultural risk and resilience→French-language works237,207→