An assessment of consumer preference for fair trade coffee in Toronto and Vancouver
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, the authors use conjoint analysis to elicit the views of coffee consumers on the attributes of Fair Trade coffee using data from the Greater Toronto Area and Vancouver collected through face‐to‐face interviews with consumers. The impact of socioeconomic and demographic factors on respondents' acceptance of Fair Trade coffee is evaluated using cluster analysis and multinomial logit models. The results suggest that, regardless of location, consumers place a strong premium on price and labeling claims. Three consumer segments are identified in each city; in Toronto, these segments are labeled Fair Trade‐Focused, Price Conscious, and Balanced Buyers; for Vancouver these segments are labeled Organic and Fair Trade‐Focused, Price Conscious, and Balanced Buyers. Although a broad spectrum of variables influences segment membership, no single variable explains membership in the same segment in each city. Such a result is rather telling; it suggests deeper constructs underlie segment membership, and presumably consumption behavior with respect to Fair Trade coffee. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it