MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546678945 · doi:10.1017/s1068280500009564

Documenting Food Safety Claims and Their Influence on Product Prices

2009· article· en· W1546678945 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ji Li, Neal H. Hooker

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Resource Economics Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomics of Agriculture and Food Markets
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic Research ServiceU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationCanadian Food Inspection AgencyFood Safety Authority of IrelandU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsFluid ounce (US)AgribusinessProduct (mathematics)BusinessMarketingPrice premiumFood safetyAgricultural scienceEconomicsAgricultural economicsFood scienceWillingness to payAgricultureMicroeconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to increasing customer attention to food attributes, agribusinesses are employing novel product differentiation strategies. As an example, we investigate the use of food safety claims on new packaged food products from the food manufacturers’ perspective. First, using two product innovation databases, we investigate claim use on labels in seven English-speaking countries over the period from 1980 to 2008. Then, based on manufacturer recommended selling prices and using U.S. data (from 2002 to 2008), we apply parametric and nonparametric hedonic methods to identify supply-side (agribusiness) valuations of chemical and microbiological claims in two food categories. We identify a significant 5 cent premium per ounce for a “preservative free” claim in spoonable yogurts. We do not find a statistically significant impact for “ E . coli free” messages on meat and poultry products but find a significant price premium (19.3 cents and 25.7 cents per ounce in the two models) for “antibiotic free” claims in this category.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.170 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Resource Economics ReviewSame topicEconomics of Agriculture and Food MarketsFrench-language works237,207