Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, Risk Perceptions, and Beef Consumption: Differences Between Canada and Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides an assessment of the perceived relative risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the context of other aspects of livestock production and human health issues. The factors influencing consumers' concerns regarding these issues are identified. Consumers' risk perceptions and risk attitudes about beef and poultry and the factors that influenced any reduction in beef consumption due to food safety issues or BSE are analyzed. General population internet-based survey were used to collect data in Japan (2009) and Canada (2006, 2009). BSE remains the highest ranking livestock production concern in Japan, in 2009, 9 years after the first animal with BSE was found in Japan. In Canada (2009), 6 years after the first domestic animal was found to have BSE, BSE ranked 7 out of 8 in possible livestock production concerns. Respondents in both countries who are older and female have a higher probability of being concerned about all livestock production issues. Higher levels of education in Canada are associated with a lower probability of ranking BSE as a high risk issue, while in Japan the opposite occurs. Canadian respondents have higher risk perceptions about poultry than beef and are more willing to accept the risks of eating beef than poultry (higher risk attitudes) than Japanese respondents. Together with some of the demographic variables, risk attitudes and risk perceptions have significantly influenced reductions in beef consumption due to food safety issues over the past 4 years and since consumers first heard about BSE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".