MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546235073 · doi:10.1300/j047v14n03_05

Consumer Preferences in the Emerging Bison Industry

2003· article· en· W1546235073 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kim Sanderson, Jill E. Hobbs, P.J. Shand, William A. Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjoint analysisPreferenceBusinessStock (firearms)TendernessMarketingSustainabilityEconomicsGeographyMicroeconomicsBiologyFood scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bison herds in western Canada have grown rapidly as producers seek to diversify their farm enterprises. Much of this growth, however, has been driven by high prices for breeding stock. Markets for bison meat have begun to emerge, and growth in these markets is essential for the long-run sustainability of the industry. However, very little information exists regarding potential bison consumers and their attitudes toward bison products. Using conjoint analysis, a survey of consumers in western Canada was used to gather information on consumer preferences for bison. Hypothetical bison products were described in terms of different levels of four attributes: price, fat content, tenderness and convenience to cook. Price emerged as the most important of the four variables; however, there was evidence that some consumers would be willing to trade off higher prices for increased tenderness and lower fat content. Cluster analysis revealed distinct consumer segments with different preference structures, pointing to potential product differentiation strategies for the bison industry.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.158 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Food & Agribusiness MarketingSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207