MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274880311 · doi:10.1080/10454446.2014.1000435

Communicating Sensory Attributes and Innovation Through Food Product Labeling

2015· article· en· W2274880311 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Products Marketing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)TasteSensory systemAffect (linguistics)Product categoryFood productsMarketingRepresentation (politics)Packaging and labelingNew product developmentPackage designCognitive psychologyPsychologyComputer scienceBusinessFood scienceAdvertisingCommunicationMathematicsEngineeringEngineering drawingChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the influence of food product packaging on consumers’ sensory expectations and perceived newness of the product. Two experiments examine to what extent consumers use product typicality, graphical representations, and package typicality in evaluating new food products. Study 1 finds that (1) a typical flavor induces more positive expectations of pleasantness, taste, color, and smell, and (2) the presence of graphic representation on product labels increases perceived pleasantness but does not affect sensory expectations. Study 2 indicates that the product seems newer in the absence of a package (label-only condition), but when the product packaging is presented, an atypical package conveys more newness than a typical package. These results provide practical guidelines for the design and introduction of innovative food products.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.173 · 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