MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387245513 · doi:10.1079/9781800622289.0010

Farmer Risk Preferences and Willingness to Pay for African Rice Landrace Seed: An Experimental Choice Analysis

2023· book-chapter· en· W4387245513 on OpenAlexaff
Aminou Arouna, Nicholas Tyack, Rachidi Aboudou

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to payRisk aversion (psychology)Guard (computer science)Work (physics)Agricultural scienceValue (mathematics)AgricultureBusinessProductivityEconomicsAgricultural economicsExpected utility hypothesisGeographyMicroeconomicsEconomic growthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most literature that investigates the impact of farmer risk preferences on agricultural technology adoption has focused on how risk preferences impact the adoption of technologies that enhance productivity but that may be riskier than local technologies. In this work, we elicit the risk preferences of smallholder rice farmers and investigate how these preferences impact how they value having access to seed of farmers’ varieties of African rice (Oryza glaberrima) maintained in the gene bank of the Rice Biodiversity Center for Africa. These varieties may have lower yields, but they may be more consistent and less risky given their adaptation to the local climatic conditions. We use a Becker–DeGroot–Marschak (BDM) mechanism to elicit farmers’ willingness to pay for small amounts of landrace seed (35 g) in Côte d’Ivoire. We find that farmers generally value having access to African rice landraces (with a mean willingness to pay of ~US$0.50), and that this willingness to pay is influenced positively by loss-aversion preferences (but not risk aversion), along with several other factors. This finding is in contrast with past evidence suggesting that loss aversion is connected to slower adoption of novel technologies, and suggests that the impact of risk preferences on technology adoption may depend on the potential ability of technologies to guard against economic losses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCABI eBooksSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207