MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions

2009· article· en· W2151401348 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glynn T. Tonsor, Ted C. Schroeder, J.M.E. Pennings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Economics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood safetyCredenceBusinessAffect (linguistics)Risk perceptionMarketingPerceptionResidenceConsumer confidence indexFood safety risk analysisDemographicsConsumption (sociology)Public economicsEnvironmental healthEconomicsPsychologyMedicineDemographic economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We developed and applied a model of consumer risk perceptions of beef food safety to better understand the underlying drivers of consumer demand for food safety. We show how consumer demographics, country‐of‐residence, as well as reliance on, and trust in, alternative food safety information sources affect risk perceptions of consumers in Canada, Japan and the United States. Consumers in all three countries have risk perceptions shaped by their level of reliance on observable and credence attribute information. Risk perceptions of consumers in each country are significantly higher for those less trusting of doctors. Moreover, personal and indirect food safety experiences substantially affect risk perceptions. These results are useful to decision‐makers in developing more efficient supply chain management strategies and public policies aimed at building or sustaining consumer confidence in food safety.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations105
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural EconomicsSame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207