Survey of Public Perceptions of Prion Disease Risks in Canada: What Does the Public Care About?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A national public survey on public perceptions of prion disease risk in Canada was conducted from October to December 2007. The survey aimed at documenting the public's perceptions of prion diseases, within the broader context of food safety, in establishing parameters of risk acceptability. It also documented the public's perceptions of prion diseases in delineating social values and ethics that can guide Canada's future policies on prion disease risk management. In addition, the survey served to establish baseline data against which to monitor the evolution of the public's views on and understanding of this important risk issue. In total, 1517 Canadians were randomly selected to be representative of the adult population by region, age, and gender, as per the 2001 Census. This study presents descriptive findings from the survey regarding perceived risk, perceived control, uncertainty, sources of information, trust and knowledge, and beliefs pertaining to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The survey data reveal that Canadians do not perceive mad cow disease as a salient risk but consider it more of an economic, political, social, and foreign trade issue than a public health one. Canadians are somewhat prepared to pay a premium to have a safer food supply, but not to the same extent that they desire extra measures pertaining to BSE risk management. In the context of increasing accountability in risk management decisions about food safety and population health issues, it is important to understand the way Canadians perceive such matters and identify their information needs and the factors that influence the acceptability of risks and of risk management policies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".