Characteristics of consumers using ‘better for you’ front-of-pack food labelling schemes – an example from the Australian Heart Foundation Tick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Heart Foundation Tick aims to help consumers make healthier food choices and overcome confusion in understanding food labels. Little is known about what factors differentiate frequent from infrequent users and the effectiveness of this scheme in helping Australians make healthier food choices. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was used to explore use of the Tick and associations with a range of individual characteristics. SETTING: A national panel of Australians, living in each state and territory, completed an online survey (n 1446). SUBJECTS: Adult men (41 %) and women participated in the study. RESULTS: Most trusted the Heart Foundation (79 %), and used the Tick at least occasionally (19 % regularly, 21 % often, 35 % occasionally, 24 % never). A majority was classified as overweight/obese (60 %), 3·5 % were diagnosed with CHD, 5·2 % with diabetes and 23 % with hypertension. Many did not meet recommendations for the consumption of red meat (30 %), processed meat (23 %), vegetables (78 %), fruit (43 %) and fast foods (47 %). Female frequent users tended to have hypertension, be married/de facto, older than 45 years, rural dwellers, and limit their intake of fast foods. Male frequent users tended to have hypertension, meet recommendations for fruit, vegetables and processed meats, but not have a tertiary education. CONCLUSIONS: The Heart Foundation Tick is a highly trusted, highly recognizable food labelling scheme and helpful to consumers who are motivated to make healthier food choices. More inter-sector collaboration is required to incorporate these schemes into public health campaigns to help consumers make healthier food choices.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".