Do Beef Risk Perceptions or Risk Attitudes Have A Greater Effect on the Beef Purchase Decisions of Canadian Consumers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cluster analysis is applied in this study to group Canadian households by two characteristics, their risk perceptions and risk attitudes toward beef. There are some similarities in demographic profiles, meat purchases, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) media recall between the cluster that perceives beef to be the most risky and the cluster that has little willingness to accept the risks of eating beef. There are similarities between the medium risk perception cluster and the medium risk attitude cluster, as well as between the cluster that perceives beef to have little risk and the cluster that is most willing to accept the risks of eating beef. Regression analysis shows that risk attitudes have a larger impact on household-level beef purchasing decisions than do risk perceptions for all consumer clusters. This implies that it may be more effective to undertake policies that reduce the risks associated with eating beef, instead of enhancing risk communication to improve risk perceptions. Only for certain clusters with higher willingness to accept the risks of eating beef might enhancing risk communication increase beef consumption significantly. The different role of risk perceptions and risk attitudes in beef consumption needs to be recognized during the design of risk management policies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".