Requirements for packaging from an ageing consumer's perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The overall objective of this research was to explore ageing consumers' attitudes towards currently available food packaging in New Zealand. Ninety‐nine individuals (over the age of 60) in New Zealand were surveyed to determine packaging attributes of importance when selecting food products. This was followed with a focus group of 13 individuals to discuss improvements to packaging. Frequencies of responses were calculated for the survey data, and cross‐tabulations and chi‐square tests were used to determine the relationships between variables. Price, safety, size of packaging and ability to recycle were of most importance to these individuals. Problems encountered with food packaging included tight lids, small printing and spillage during opening. Of the types of package closures investigated, opening of packages, rather than resealing of packages proved problematic. Fifty percent or more of respondents indicated that peelable induction seals, lug closures and continuous thread closures were problems that occurred ‘very often’ or ‘frequently’. Sixty‐one percent of the participants surveyed had asked for assistance opening some types of packages, and this was particularly prevalent among individuals who had weakness in their arms, hands or wrists. Changes to package closures suggested during the focus groups included increasing the size of twist off caps, larger ring pulls on aluminium cans and including more sliding resealable closures on foil and plastic packaging. Larger printing on labels was also recommended by the participants. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This article was published online on 1st December 2008. An error was subsequently identified. This notice is included in the online and print versions to indicate that both were corrected on 19th March 2009.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".