In an attempt at saving the environment, are you instead harming yourself?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background With the increasing shift to reusable shopping bags and the potential ban on plastic bags in Canada in the near future, the question arises as to whether consumers are aware of the proper practices to maintain a safe environment within the bags themselves. The reason for this study was to determine if people are aware of the need to keep specific bags for certain food groups and if they are aware of the need to wash and/or sanitize their reusable shopping bags due to the risk of cross-contamination. Usage of the same bag for various foods (e.g. lettuce and raw meat) without proper sanitation practices can lead to cross-contamination between the foods, and in turn, create a risk of food borne illness. Methods A survey created on Microsoft Office 365 Word was administered through Survey Monkey and distributed on Reddit, various social media, and by email. The survey collection ran for one week in the month of January 2020. The survey consisted of 14 questions and took approximately two to three minutes to complete. Results 225 respondents filled out the online survey. The majority of survey responses were from British Columbia (47%), were female (54%), attended post-secondary institutions (65%) and were between the ages of 20 to 30 (46%). Nearly half of reusable shopping bag users use the same bag to store their fruits/vegetables and their meats, 61% of users have never cleaned their shopping bags, 7% clean them weekly, and only 1% clean their bag after every use. Those who mix produce and meats in the same bag are less likely to wash their RSBs (p = 0.0006). Males are less likely to wash their shopping bags than females (P = 0.009). 97% of survey respondents were not provided with any cleaning instructions upon their purchase of a reusable shopping bag and 93% have never seen educational material presented on RSB cleaning and/or the risk of cross-contamination. 84% believe there is not appropriate awareness and knowledge among the general public on the cleaning requirements of reusable shopping bags and the potential risk of cross-contamination while 10% believe there is sufficient awareness. Not surprisingly, those who were not aware that shopping bags need to be cleaned between uses were less likely to wash them (p = 7.804 x10-19). Conclusion In conclusion: 1. people who are not aware that their RSBs need to be cleaned between uses are also less likely to clean them, 2. males are less likely to clean their reusable shopping bags, 3. bags that contain both fruits/vegetables and meats in the same bags are also less likely to be cleaned, and 4. bags that are used more frequently also cleaned more frequently. Further education on reusable shopping bags is needed along with the transition from plastic bags to reusable shopping bags. At the time of publication, the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic was rapidly spreading throughout the world. In order to prevent fomite spread of disease, British Columbia forbade the use of RSBs in grocery stores, resulting in a proliferation of plastic bags. Time will tell when, and if, RSBs will be permitted for grocery shopping.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».