Developing logistic regression models using purchase attributes and demographics to predict the probability of purchases of regular and specialty eggs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumers' interest in specialty eggs appears to be growing in Europe and North America. The objective of this research was to develop logistic regression models that utilise purchaser attributes and demographics to predict the probability of a consumer purchasing a specific type of table egg including regular (white and brown), non-caged (free-run, free-range and organic) or nutrient-enhanced eggs. These purchase prediction models, together with the purchasers' attributes, can be used to assess market opportunities of different egg types specifically in British Columbia (BC). An online survey was used to gather data for the models. A total of 702 completed questionnaires were submitted by BC residents. Selected independent variables included in the logistic regression to develop models for different egg types to predict the probability of a consumer purchasing a specific type of table egg. The variables used in the model accounted for 54% and 49% of variances in the purchase of regular and non-caged eggs, respectively. Research results indicate that consumers of different egg types exhibit a set of unique and statistically significant characteristics and/or demographics. For example, consumers of regular eggs were less educated, older, price sensitive, major chain store buyers, and store flyer users, and had lower awareness about different types of eggs and less concern regarding animal welfare issues. However, most of the non-caged egg consumers were less concerned about price, had higher awareness about different types of table eggs, purchased their eggs from local/organic grocery stores, farm gates or farmers markets, and they were more concerned about care and feeding of hens compared to consumers of other eggs types.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".