Differences between Occasional Organic and Regular Organic Food Consumers in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was the aim of this study to understand the differences between occasional organic consumers (OOC) and regular organic food consumers (ROC). A total of 571 consumers, interviewed directly after grocery shopping, were classified as conventional, occasional organic or regular organic consumers depending on the number of organically produced items bought. In order to gain encompassing insights on the differences between the ROC and OOC consumer groups, a large set of psychological and socio-demographic factors was studied. They differ with respect to general food choice motives with OOC placing significantly less importance on animal welfare, food security, environmental protection and more importance on caloric content, convenience and price compared to ROC; with respect to beliefs about the consequences of organic food consumption OOC expect greater expense, less choice, no increase in vitamins and no improvement in taste compared to ROC, and finally OOC show a less positive attitude, weaker social norms and lower intentions of buying organic food regularly in the future and give a lower importance in their lives to protection of the environment. OOC finally prefer different grocery stores and use a larger variety of stores than ROC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".