MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating Consumer Preferences for Organic Food Production Standards

2009· article· en· W1984429879 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
John Cranfield, Brady J. Deaton, Shreenivas G Shellikeri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFood standardsAgricultural scienceFood processingAgriculturePolitical scienceBusinessFood safetyGeographyFood scienceEnvironmental scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 21st century agriculture, standards are increasingly used to define new food products, such as organic food and fair trade. In some cases these standards are privately determined but in other cases they have been established by governments. Indeed, the Government of Canada recently announced its organic food regulations. A key dimension of the policy process involves choosing which standards are to be used to govern the production of organic food. Unfortunately, decision makers faced with these choices know very little about how the public values the various standards that could be used to define organic. This study evaluates Canadian consumers' preferences for different organic standards. Standards pertaining to pesticide‐residue testing, product origin specifications, the standard setting agency, and standard monitoring agency are evaluated using a conjoint method. Key results suggest that consumers place a high value on a pesticide standard that involves regular testing of the end product and that they prefer an organic food standard to include a rule that limits where the good is produced. En agriculture en ce 21e siècle, des normes sont de plus en plus utilisées pour définir de nouveaux produits alimentaires tels que les aliments biologiques et les aliments issus du commerce équitable. Dans certains cas, ces normes sont établies par des organismes privés, et dans d'autres cas, elles sont établies par les gouvernements. Dernièrement, le gouvernement du Canada a annoncé son Règlement sur les produits biologiques. Un élément clé du processus d'élaboration des politiques consiste à choisir les normes qui s'appliqueront à la production d'aliments biologiques. Malheureusement, les décideurs à qui reviennent ces choix en savent très peu sur les valeurs que le public accorde aux diverses normes qui pourraient être utilisées pour définir le terme «biologique». La présente étude évalue les préférences des consommateurs canadiens concernant les diverses normes sur les produits biologiques. Les normes sur l'analyse des résidus de pesticides, les spécifications sur l'origine du produit, les organismes de normalisation et les organismes de surveillance sont évaluées à l'aide d'une méthode conjointe. Les résultats fondamentaux montrent que les consommateurs accordent une grande importance à une norme sur les pesticides qui exige des analyses régulières du produit final et qu'ils préfèrent une norme sur les aliments biologiques qui inclut un règlement sur l'origine du produit.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207