MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reconceptualizing risk perception: perceiving Majority World citizens at risk from ‘Northern’ consumption

2006· article· en· W1967299756 on OpenAlexaff
Sue L. T. McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Consumer Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk perceptionConsumption (sociology)Situational ethicsPerceptionHarmService (business)Risk managementPerspective (graphical)Social psychologyPremisePsychologyMarketingBusinessSociologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The premise of this paper is that the consumption behaviour of ‘Northern’ citizens places Majority World citizens at great risk. A theoretical evolution suggested in this paper is the extension of the notion of risky consumption to include the impact of consumption on the human security of others. Until people can envision that their consumption behaviour places others at risk of exposure to harm, they will not see the need to perceive, assess and manage the risk. The paper tenders a preliminary reconceptualization of risk perception, using the conventional consumer behaviour model constructs of personal, distribution channel and situational factors. From this new perspective, instead of judging whether the good or service is risky for a ‘Northern’ citizen to consume, risk perception scholars would examine people's perceptions of whether their consumption places fellow citizens at risk, the people labouring and producing the goods and services.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Consumer StudiesSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207