MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981001487

The design of weather index insurance for forage: the case of basis risk for the Canadian province of Ontario

2015· dissertation· en· W6981001487 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsMulticollinearityBasis riskIndex (typography)Regression analysisRegressionLinear regressionScale (ratio)Principal component analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines weather index area-yield basis risk for forage insurance. The first focus of the research is to determine which weather variables (e.g. rainfall, temperature, sunshine, etc) should be included in the multivariable weather index, given the limited yield data and multicollinearity among weather variables. The second focus is to analyze the effect of the geographical scale (number of counties used in the index) on basis risk. Daily weather data and actual forage yield are from Ontario’s rainfall index-based forage insurance plan. Both principal component regression (PCR) and partial least squares regression (PLSR) are used to select the weather index variables. Results show that the two regression models generate similar weather variable selection for the weather index. Both models can be considered suitable depending on the choice of criteria. Further, the results show that as the number of counties of the index decreases, area-yield basis risk is reduced substantially.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207