MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1811979373 · doi:10.1111/cjag.12062

How Local Is Local? A Reflection on Canadian Local Food Labeling Policy from Consumer Preference

2015· article· en· W1811979373 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kar Ho Lim, Wuyang Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGentHuazhong Agricultural UniversityUniversity of KentuckyKorea UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaKentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsWillingness to payPreferencePerceptionBusinessReflection (computer programming)GeographyAgricultural economicsEconomicsMicroeconomicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a nationwide choice experiment to gauge Canadian consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for local beef assigned with various mileage and geopolitical connotations. Results revealed that consumers are mostly indifferent between products labeled generically as “local” and as “local: from within 160 km,” implying that the 160‐km radius fits perception of local of the representative consumers. Additionally, consumers are willing to pay significantly more for home‐province products over products generically labeled “local.” We also found significant positive WTP for enhanced bovine spongiform encephalopathy tested beef as well as for grass‐ over grain‐fed beef.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.025 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207