MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of Digital Finance on Farmers’ Adoption of Eco-Agricultural Technology: Evidence from Rice–Crayfish Co-cultivation Technology in China

2024· preprint· en· W4392372803 on OpenAlexaff
Zhe Liu, Zhenhong Qi, Qingsong Tian, J. Stephen Clark, Zeyu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrayfishChinaAgricultureBusinessAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceFisheryEconomicsEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eco-agricultural technology is crucial to alleviating agricultural resource scarcity and environ-mental pressures. However, financial constraint affects its successful promotion. Digital finance has a significant impact on farmers, but existing research lacks an exploration of the impact of digital finance on farmers' adoption of eco-agricultural technology. This study focuses on Rice–Crayfish Co-cultivation Technology as an example. It utilizes survey data from 1,063 households in China. An Endogenous Switching Probit model is employed to solve self-selection bias. The results reveal several key findings. First, the average treatment effect on the treated is 51.5%. This indicates that if farmers who use digital finance were to stop using it, the probability of adopting rice–crayfish co-cultivation technology would decrease by 51.5%. Therefore, digital finance is beneficial for farmers in adopting this technology. Second, heterogeneity analysis reveals that digital finance has a greater promoting effect on older farmers, those with lower education levels, and higher proportions of agricultural income. This suggests a greater reliance on digital financial services among vulnerable groups. Third, digital finance promotes farmers' adoption of rice–crayfish co-cultivation technology by alleviating financial constraints, expanding information channels, and increasing social capital accumulation. Overall, the findings offer valuable insights for for-mulating supportive policies.

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)0.002
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207