<i>Rural Consumers’ Attitudes</i>: Towards Nutrition Labelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Consumer workshops in rural and remote locations were evaluated for their efficacy in changing participants' self-perceived attitudes and behaviours related to nutrition labelling. METHODS: Project-trained community health educators used pilot-tested workshop resources to facilitate 18 workshops across the country. Participants completed pre-workshop questionnaires to permit the identification of demographic characteristics and attitudes and behaviours related to nutrition labelling at point-of-purchase. RESULTS: The majority of the 259 consumers who submitted questionnaires were women (81%), and aged 35 to 54 (35%); 51% reported more than a high school education and 34% had less than $25,000 as a yearly family income. Self-perceived attitudes and behaviours related to nutrition labelling differed only slightly by family income before the workshop. Workshops were rated positively (mode=4 [range 2 to 5]). Thirty-five consumers were surveyed three months after the workshop; the majority were women (89%), were aged 35 to 54 (43%), and had completed high school (51%). Self-perceived attitudes and behaviours for all respondents (n=35) had improved. Use of acquired knowledge and skills at point-of-purchase was high for all respondents (mode=4 [range 2 to 5]; five-point Likert scale). CONCLUSIONS: Providing in-person consumer workshops with pilot-tested materials in rural and remote locations had positive impacts on attitudes and behaviours related to the use of nutrition labelling.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".