MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038518336 · doi:10.1108/00070700310506254

Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet‐corn

2003· article· en· W2038518336 on OpenAlex
D. Powell, K. Blaine, Shane Morris, J.L. Wilson

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Food Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingAgricultural scienceBusinessAgricultureDozenSowingMarketingAgronomyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this farm‐to‐fork trial, genetically engineered (GE) Bt sweet‐corn and Bt potatoes were grown side‐by‐side with conventional varieties in the 2000 growing season at a farm and market in Hillsburgh, Ontario, Canada. The Bt sweet‐corn required no insecticides. From an economic perspective, only the first planting had pest pressure high enough to warrant the higher seed cost of the GE variety. The sweet‐corn harvested throughout the trial was segregated and labeled, and direct consumer evaluation of purchasing preferences was conducted. Overall, the Bt sweet‐corn outsold the conventional sweet‐corn by a margin of 680 dozen (or 8,160 cobs) to 452.5 dozen (or 5,430 cobs). A limited number of intercept interviews were conducted after consumers made their purchasing decision. The majority of consumers interviewed said they were more concerned about pesticides than genetic engineering; however, taste and quality also had a strong influence on purchasing decisions.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.194 · 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