MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020242529

Learning and Technology Adoption in Developing Countries

2023· dissertation· en· W7020242529 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeveloping countryDeveloped countryGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Information technology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis contains three essays that focus on understanding the learning and technology adoption in developing countries.The first essay explores network-based targeting strategies for improving technology adoption.I consider the situation where the new technology can be more beneficial to some agents than others, with this heterogeneity affecting the diffusion of information.I develop a network-based theoretical framework of information diffusion with heterogeneous agents and validate the predictions of my model using experimental secondary data from Malawi.The essay highlights the need to understand possible population heterogeneity in benefits for designing network-based interventions.The second essay investigates how experiences shape learning for index insurance products.I focus on the effect of two different types of experiences: experiencing disasters and receiving payouts.I develop a theoretical model where households learn from their experience and test the predictions of the model using data for an index insurance product in rural Kenya.My findings indicate that learning more about the index insurance product lowers its demand.Thus, contrary to common belief, I find information frictions are driving index insurance demand higher than optimal.The last essay focuses on the role of active discussion in resolving information frictions related to the relative riskiness and uncertainty of different strategies to deal with Late Blight (LB) for Peruvian potato farmers.We use primary data from an artefactual field experiment.Our results suggest the need for policy to complement active discussions with knowledge interventions for its intended effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207