MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084387059 · doi:10.1080/19368623.2010.514557

Predicting Tourists' Intention to Consume Genetically Modified Food

2010· article· en· W2084387059 on OpenAlexaff
Haywantee Ramkissoon, Robin Nunkoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismGenetically modified foodMarketingTheory of planned behaviorProduct (mathematics)BusinessDestinationsFood industryFood productsGenetically modified organismFood choiceControl (management)AdvertisingPsychologyEconomicsFood scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role which food plays in the tourism industry cannot be ignored. However, the literature has also led to believe that food risks are perceived to be higher abroad than at home and this could act as an impediment for the tourism industry. Though research on food as a tourism product has been growing in the literature, little has been said about genetically modified (GM) food intake by tourists. This study develops a model to predict tourists' intention to consume GM food based on the postulates of the theory of planned behavior. Attitude to GM food, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms are proposed as the determinants of behavioral intention to consume such foods. The model also considers perceived risks with GM foods to be an important determinant of attitude. Furthermore, factors likely to be antecedents of the travelers' perceived risks with GM foods are discussed and incorporated in the proposed model. Some propositions on which future research could be based on are also made. The study concludes that the model is particularly useful for those destinations introducing GM foods in their markets and where the tourism industry plays an important role.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospitality Marketing & ManagementSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207