CONSUMER ASSESSMENT OF THE SAFETY OF RESTAURANTS: THE ROLE OF INSPECTION NOTICES AND OTHER INFORMATION CUES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper explores the ways in which consumers assess the safety of food in restaurants and other eating‐out establishments, and the resulting impact on restaurant choice. The analysis builds on the existing literature on restaurant choice more generally and a growing body of studies on the impact of official inspection information on the perceived safety of restaurants. Based on a two‐stage consumer study in the City of Hamilton in Ontario, Canada, involving focus groups and a postal survey, the research highlights how consumers base their assessment of food safety in restaurants using a range of visible indicators of the experience and/or credence characteristics associated with foodborne illness. These include their observed judgments of restaurant hygiene, the overall quality of the restaurant, external information, including official inspection certificates, and the level of patronage. The use of these broad groups of indicators varies across consumer subgroups according to gender, age, level of education and recollections of past incidences when a restaurant was closed and/or convicted for food safety reasons.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it