Consumer Response to Information about a Functional Food Product: Apples Enriched with Antioxidants
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
Interest in functional foods has been growing as consumers become increasingly concerned with diet and nutrition. This article measures consumers' responses to apples enriched with an antioxidant coating. Antioxidant‐enriched apples are believed to provide additional health benefits reducing the risk of cancer and heart diseases. We discuss the consumer's benefit‐risk trade‐offs. Although functional food products provide health benefits beyond basic nutrition, some consumers may reject them because they utilize new technology. Face‐to‐face consumer surveys with contingent valuation questions were conducted in Seattle and Spokane, Washington in 2006. Consumers who choose where to shop based on organic availability are less likely to pay a premium for apples enriched with antioxidants. Also, there is evidence that consumers in Spokane are more likely to pay a premium for the product than consumers in supermarkets in Seattle. Information regarding the potential health benefits of antioxidants has a positive significant effect on consumers' willingness to pay (WTP). The estimated mean WTP suggests that there is a small premium associated with this product in the mind of an average consumer. L'intérêt pour les aliments fonctionnels ne cesse de croître étant donné que les consommateurs s'intéressent de plus en plus au régime alimentaire et à la nutrition. Le présent article évalue la réaction des consommateurs à la vente de pommes enrobées d'antioxydants. On croit que les pommes enrichies d'antioxydants procureraient des bienfaits supplémentaires pour la santé en diminuant le risque de cancer et de cardiopathies. Nous avons examiné les avantages et les risques pour le consommateur. Bien que les aliments fonctionnels apportent des bienfaits pour la santé en plus d'une nutrition de base, certains consommateurs peuvent les refuser parce qu'ils ont nécessité l'utilisation de nouvelles technologies. En 2006, nous avons effectué, à Seattle et à Spokane dans l'État de Washington, des sondages en personne à l'aide de l'approche des préférences exprimées. Les consommateurs qui choisissaient un magasin d'alimentation en fonction de la disponibilité de produits biologiques étaient moins enclins à payer une prime pour obtenir des pommes enrichies d'antioxydants. Les consommateurs de Spokane ont semblé plus enclins à payer une prime pour ce produit que les consommateurs qui fréquentaient les supermarchés de Seattle. L'information sur les bienfaits potentiels des antioxydants sur la santé a des répercussions positives considérables sur la volonté de payer des consommateurs. La volonté de payer moyenne estimative laisse supposer que, dans l'esprit du consommateur moyen, ce produit procure un certain avantage.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it