MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189257733 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v4n6p143

Consumer Attitudes toward the Use of Gene Technology in Breakfast Products: Comparison between College Students from the U.S. and China

2015· article· en· W2189257733 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nanying Wang, Jack E. Houston, Gregory Colson, Zimin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaMarketingPerceptionQuality (philosophy)Genetically modified foodGene technologyBusinessAdvertisingGeneration yGenetically modified organismPsychologyBiotechnologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Second-generation Genetically Modified (GM) crops are associated with consumer-oriented benefits such as improvement of nutritional quality. Given such an evolving market environment, this paper presents differences in consumer preferences and valuations for genetically modified breakfast grain products. The perception of consumers from a developing country, China, is discussed and compared to attitudes in a developed country, the U.S. The survey results reveal that there are notable differences in the attitude and perception of college students across these two countries. Purchase intent for GM foods was low, unless a benefit was promised, and some modifications are viewed more positively than others. Overall, it appears that GM foods may be acceptable in the U.S. and Chinese market. The findings in this study have potential implications for establishing various GM marketing strategies and information campaigns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.075 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207