MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416667902 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v18n6p71

Research on Corn Income Insurance Pricing under the “Insurance + Futures” Model

2025· article· W4416667902 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mike Li, Desheng Guo, PU Cheng-yi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractVolatility (finance)Copula (linguistics)Risk managementAgricultureCrop insuranceChinaEmpirical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global climate change has increased systemic risks for grain-producing households. It has led to fluctuations in corn yields and prices, which threaten the stability of farmers’ incomes. China has developed an innovative agricultural risk management mechanism through the ‘insurance plus futures’ model, which transfers farmers’ income risks to the futures market. However, existing agricultural income insurance programs face major challenges, including the absence of standardized yield and price data and inefficiencies in risk pricing. This paper develops an income-insurance pricing model that integrates Copula functions with Asian options. The model relaxes the traditional assumption of risk independence and mitigates the impact of short-term price volatility on insurance payouts. Empirical analysis based on the 2024 corn “insurance plus futures” project in Da’an City, Jilin Province, shows that the proposed model strengthens agricultural risk protection, optimizes premium rate design, and improves product sustainability. The findings offer methodological innovation for improving China’s policy-based agricultural insurance system.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207