Perception versus Reality: Canadian Consumer Views of Local and Organic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past decade, Canadian consumers have developed a keen interest in local and organic foods. In response, the Canadian government established standards to regulate their labeling. However, many retail and media outlets offer varying definitions that fit their needs. Consumers utilize this often conflicting information to formulate their understanding of local and organic. The aim of this study was to investigate consumer understanding and perception of local and organic food, especially in regard to production characteristics. The results indicate that local is predominantly defined as decreased miles to transport, whereas organic is defined as food produced without the use of synthetic pesticides. However, a fairly large percentage of consumers perceive inaccurate definitions as being characteristics of local and organic. Furthermore, consumers with accurate definitions of local and organic share a similar consumer profile, while consumers with misguided perceptions do not. We also see that characteristics such as ethnic heritage, personal characteristics, geographic region, and length of stay in Canada not only influence consumer understanding and perception, but also the geographic boundaries associated with local.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it