MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410131255 · doi:10.12944/carj.13.1.05

Navigating Agricultural Risk: Evaluating Farmers' Perceptions and Barriers in the Adoption of PMFBY Scheme for Risk Management

2025· article· en· W4410131255 on OpenAlexaff
Bijin Philip, Jinu Mathew, Nandini Thyagaraj, Geethu Anna Mathew, Roshen Therese Sebastian

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Agriculture Research Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgriculturePlant scienceRisk perceptionBusinessRisk managementScheme (mathematics)PerceptionEnvironmental planningAgricultural scienceAgricultural economicsEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsMathematicsBiologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenges faced by Indian farmers, exacerbated by systemic neglect and climate uncertainties, demand robust risk management strategies. This study investigates farmers' awareness and perceptions of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), a flagship agricultural insurance scheme introduced to mitigate these challenges. The methodology combines a comprehensive literature review and secondary data analysis, drawing insights from government reports and scholarly databases. Findings reveal a significant disparity in awareness across states, with farmers struggling to understand critical scheme features. Recommendations include enhancing communication strategies and leveraging technology for better claim settlements. By addressing these gaps, the PMFBY can better serve its primary stakeholders the farmers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.395
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Agriculture Research JournalSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207