Potential use of weather derivatives in hedging aggregate viticulture yields: An analysis of the Niagara region of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although potentially useful for financially hedging systemic weather-related risks, weather contracts/derivatives (also referred to as parametric insurance) have not seen wide adoption in agriculture outside of applications in developing countries, frequently supported by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). A significant impediment is the lack of financial firms willing to stand ready to sell weather derivatives to individual agricultural producers in the over-the-counter market who, due to the localized nature of weather, face idiosyncratic weather-related risks. In particular, the administrative and reinsurance costs of supplying relatively small contracts with specific terms to many different producers are often prohibitive. The current study considers the potential use of weather derivatives in hedging the aggregate yield/revenues of viticulture producers represented by an industry association located in the province of Ontario, Canada. We examine the sensitivity of aggregate industry yields to several relevant weather-related risks employing copula function analysis. We then consider the potential of a weather derivative in hedging the financial risk associated with cold winter temperatures, which pose the greatest risk to aggregate vinifera yields. The issue of attributing costs and payouts to individual association members remains unresolved, and several alternatives are suggested.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".