The Importance of Consumers’ Knowledge About Food Quality, Labeling and Safety in Food Choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the aim to investigate existence of difference between responses of selected groups of young consumers representatives toward information associated with knowledge about food quality, labeling, safety and conditions of the product use, the results of survey were analyzed crossing the groups of consumers regarding: (1) education and (2) gender, with the other variables: (i) information related to food quality, labeling and food safety; (ii) information related to food safety; (iii) information associated with individual experience in food purchasing, preparing and consuming. The questionnaire offered answers with three grade of importance. Our research showed that groups of students formed on the basis of their education and gender, in our survey considered as representatives of young adults, had different interest for selected set of information included in the statements connected with food quality, safety and food choice. The results showed that there is a need for better informing and education of consumers about food quality and safety, labels and labeling, and how to use and interpret labels content. The results of research represent a qualitative set of information related to the food preference, which could be useful for creation and development guidelines for consumers’ better informing and education.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".