Consumer Preferences for Improved Hen Housing: Is a Cage a Cage?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rising concern among consumers regarding animal welfare in livestock production has prompted several regions, including California and the European Union to ban the use of battery cage housing systems for laying hens. In Quebec, battery cages are being phased out with new barns required to be equipped with enriched cages or alternative housing system. Since switching housing systems generates costs, it is important to verify consumer receptivity to these changes. This paper examines the results of a discrete choice experiment to understand Quebec consumers’ demand for enriched cages and preferences for amenities commonly included in these cages. Results show that each subgroup of consumers provides a positive value for eggs produced in enhanced housing systems but differ in the features that are valued. However, in all subgroups there is low or no valuation associated with increased cage space, as well as the presence of scratch pads and dust baths. Les consommateurs sont de plus en plus soucieux du bien‐être animal. Plusieurs régions, incluant la Californie et l'Europe, interdissent l’élevage de poules dans des systèmes de cages traditionnelles. Au Québec, ce type de cage sera graduellement éliminé, les producteurs ayant collectivement décidé que les nouvelles constructions seront équipées de cages enrichies ou de système alternatif. Puisqu'un système de cages enrichies implique des coûts additionnels pour les producteurs, il est important de vérifier la réceptivité des consommateurs pour les œufs produits dans ce type de système de logement. Les données d'une expérience à choix discret sont analysées, notamment par segment de consommateurs. Les résultats indiquent une valeur positive pour le système enrichi, mais les différentes composantes du système de cages enrichies sont valorisées différemment selon les segments de consommateurs. Toutefois, l'espace supplémentaire, la possibilité de bains de poussières et le coussin de grattage sont peu ou pas valorisés, et ce, pour l'ensemble des segments de consommateurs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".