MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7061850387

Pricing of water supply services: Consumer response to price structures

2008· dissertation· en· W7061850387 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to payWater utilityContingent valuationEconomic shortageOrder (exchange)Valuation (finance)Price settingPurchasing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research empirically examines consumers' preferences for water services under different price structures and their willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid seasonal water use restrictions. According to the literature, consumers are not price sensitive and price response varies with the type of price structure. Existing literature is based on aggregate response to price structure and not actual consumer responses. In addition, in view of supply shortages utilities restrict outdoor activities. However, available information on water industry does not provide evidence on consumers' valuation of the service. Utilities do not have enough information to decide cost effective ways for delivering the service. This is the first study that uses a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to empirically examine how water consumers respond to various price schemes. 146 respondents from Guelph who paid for their water bill were recruited by way of a mall intercept. The estimated choice models suggest that participants' price response varies with the type of tariff. Also, results show that respondents are WTP in order to avoid daily restrictions during the summer.

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)0.014
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→