MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999110125 · doi:10.1080/08974438.2011.621834

Canadian Organic Food Consumers' Profile and Their Willingness to Pay Premium Prices

2012· article· en· W1999110125 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leila Hamzaoui-Essoussi, Mehdi Zahaf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychographicWillingness to payBusinessMarketingLikert scalePrice premiumFood marketMarket segmentationDemographicsOrganic productAgricultural economicsEconomicsAgricultureGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Organic food (OF) consumers are concerned with health, safety, and quality of food they eat. However, not all OF consumers are equally "organic." This article aims to offer more insights into the organic consumers' profile by clustering Canadian OF consumers into market segments based on their usage rate and psychographic characteristics. Results show 3 distinct segments of OF consumers varying significantly in their motivations to buy OF in their lifestyles but not in their demographics. The article also investigates these consumer segments' willingness to pay (WTP) premium prices for OF products. WTP is thus not only determined by food category but also by type of consumer. Results also point out significant linkages between psychographic characteristics and WTP for OF. KEYWORDS: food qualityhealthmarket segmentationorganic foodpsychographicswillingness to pay Acknowledgments This article was accepted under the editorship of Dr. Erdener Kaynak. Notes Note. RC = regular consumers; non-RC = non-regular consumers. *Significant at 5%. Note. Non-RC = non-regular consumers; RC = regular consumers. Note. OF = organic food. a Measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Note. TOFC = true organic food consumers; SOFC = sporadic organic food consumers; IOFC = inexperienced organic food consumers. Note. TOFC = true organic food consumers; SOFC = sporadic organic food consumers; IOFC = inexperienced organic food consumers. *Significant at 5%. Note. These percentages do not add to 100% because of missing values. All cross-tabulations are significant at 5%. TOFC = true organic food consumers; SOFC = sporadic organic food consumers; IOFC = inexperienced organic food consumers. Study based on findings from the Environics International Food Issues Monitor Survey 2000 and the Canadian Healthfood Association Survey 2000. Additional informationNotes on contributorsLeila Hamzaoui-Essoussi Leila Hamzaoui-Essoussi is Associate Professor at the Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada. Mehdi Zahaf Mehdi Zahaf is Associate Professor at the Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations102
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Food & Agribusiness MarketingSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207