Trust in and through labelling – a systematic review and critique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Distrust of conventional food supply systems impacts consumer food choice. This in turn has implications for consumer nutrition outcomes and acceptance of expert advice regarding food and health. The research exploring consumer trust is found across a broad range of research streams, and is not cohesive in topic or approach. The purpose of this paper is to synthesise the disparate literature exploring the interaction between food labelling and consumer trust to determine what is known, and gaps in knowledge regarding food labelling and consumer trust. Design/methodology/approach – A systematic search of trust and food labelling literature was conducted, with study results synthesised and integrated. Studies were then critically analysed for the conceptualisation of the consumer, the label, and their interaction with a framework developed using social theories of trust. Findings – In total, 27 studies were identified. It was found that not only is the current literature predominantly atheoretical, but the conceptualisation of labelling has been limited. Research limitations/implications – Further empirical research is needed to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the role food labelling plays in influencing consumer trust in food systems. Originality/value – This research develops a conceptualisation of the dual roles food labelling may play in influencing consumer trust in food systems. It distinguishes between trust in food labelling itself, and the trust consumers develop in the food supply system through food labelling. The novel theoretical model and synthesis provide a foundation upon which future research may be conducted.
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 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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".