Exploring the decision‐making process of Canadian organic food consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose – Although consumption of organic food (OF) shows promising trends in Canada, there is no clear understanding of the barriers that still prevent a larger demand for OF. The main objectives of this paper are to understand what, how, where, and why Canadian consumers buy OF by exploring consumers' motivations and decision‐making process, and digging into consumers' trust orientations with regards to OF. Design/methodology/approach – In‐depth interviews are conducted and data collected are analyzed using content analysis. Findings – Results indicate that Canadian typical organic product consumers have a defined purchase scheme in terms of retail stores selection and price, as well as values and trust orientations. They identify health, the environment, and support for local farmers as their primary motivators for organic consumption. In particular, health motivation is mainly based on avoidance from chemical residues, antibiotics, hormones, genetically modified organisms, and diseases. Results also show that distribution, certification, country of origin, and labeling are all related to consumers' level of trust when consuming OF. Research limitations/implications – Data collection was conducted in only one Canadian city and should be extended to other cities across the country. Originality/value – This paper entails an exploration of consumer's decision‐making process and their underlying motivations and trust orientations but also an investigation of the marketing mix related to OF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".