MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017164776 · doi:10.1002/pa.25

Determinants of anti‐GM food activism

2005· article· en· W2017164776 on OpenAlexafffund
Gale E. West, Bruno Larue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Affairs · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanada Research ChairsIowa State UniversityUniversité Laval
KeywordsBoycottProbit modelOrdered probitMultivariate probit modelPredictive powerPower (physics)Telephone surveyProbitMultivariate analysisEconomicsPolitical sciencePsychologyMarketingBusinessLawEconometricsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Anti‐genetically modified (GM) food organizations have often incited consumers to boycott conventional groceries and donate money to their cause. Using telephone survey data from 1008 Canadians, this study examines differences in attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and behaviours of anti‐GM food activists and non‐activists, then uses multivariate probit analysis to determine which of these characteristics predict the likelihood of such active participation in the anti‐GM movement. Food production knowledge and general concerns about health and the environment did not predict anti‐GM activism, while anti‐corporate sentiments, fear of globalization and belief that GM foods are fundamentally unnatural had the greatest predictive power. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public AffairsSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207