MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979791691 · doi:10.1080/09603120802527646

Factors influencing workers to follow food safety management systems in meat plants in Ontario, Canada

2009· article· en· W1979791691 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brita Ball, Anne Wilcock, May Aung

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Health Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood safety managementFocus groupFood safetyQualitative researchFood processingCritical control pointHazard analysis and critical control pointsBusinessMeat packing industryProduction (economics)HazardControl (management)Hazard analysisMarketingOperations managementEngineeringComputer scienceMedicineFood scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small and medium sized food businesses have been slow to adopt food safety management systems (FSMSs) such as good manufacturing practices and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP). This study identifies factors influencing workers in their implementation of food safety practices in small and medium meat processing establishments in Ontario, Canada. A qualitative approach was used to explore in-plant factors that influence the implementation of FSMSs. Thirteen in-depth interviews in five meat plants and two focus group interviews were conducted. These generated 219 pages of verbatim transcripts which were analysed using NVivo 7 software. Main themes identified in the data related to production systems, organisational characteristics and employee characteristics. A socio-psychological model based on the theory of planned behaviour is proposed to describe how these themes and underlying sub-themes relate to FSMS implementation. Addressing the various factors that influence production workers is expected to enhance FSMS implementation and increase food safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Health ResearchSame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207