Consumers' Food Choices with Voluntary Access to Genetic Modification Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects on product choices of voluntarily accessed information are examined in the context of an experimental survey relating to genetically modified food. The data and analysis in this study avoid the assumption that information made available or given to consumers is equivalent to information processed by consumers. Instead we focus on information access behavior. Three different approaches to model this behavior are applied in a Bayesian estimation framework, including conditional logit (CL) models based on the full sample, ex post analysis of individual parameters from mixed logit models, and CL models within the different information scenarios. All three approaches give consistent results. However, the assumption of voluntary information access generates different results than assuming that all information is processed. The results of the analysis show that different types of information do have impacts on consumers' product choices. The nature of these effects appears to be influenced by voluntary access to information. Les répercussions de l'accès volontaire à l'information sur les choix de produits ont été examinées dans le cadre d'un sondage expérimental sur les aliments génétiquement modifiés. Dans la présente étude, l'hypothèse voulant que l'information offerte ou transmise aux consommateurs soit équivalente à l'information que les consommateurs trouvent d'eux‐mêmes a étéécartée. Nous avons plutôt mis l'accent sur le comportement face à l'accès à l'information. Pour modéliser ce comportement, trois méthodes différentes ont été appliquées dans une structure d'estimation bayésienne, à savoir des modèles logit conditionnels fondés sur l'échantillon complet, une analyse ex post des paramètres individuels tirés de modèles logit mixtes et des modèles logit conditionnels parmi les divers scénarios d'information. Les trois méthodes ont donné des résultats concordants. Toutefois, l'hypothèse de l'accès volontaire à l'information a généré des résultats qui différaient de ceux de l'hypothèse voulant que toute l'information soit traitée. Les résultats de l'analyse ont montré que différents types d'information ont des répercussions sur les choix de produits des consommateurs. La nature de ces répercussions semble être influencée par l'accès volontaire à l'information.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".