Consumer perceptions of trans fats in 2009 show awareness of negative effects but limited concern regarding use in snack foods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine consumers' perceptions of industrially produced trans fats. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Regina at 3 different grocery store chains located in 3 different regions. A 21-item survey was administered in English by 3 research assistants at the grocery stores over a 5-day period. Of 498 potential respondents who were approached, 211 completed the survey, for a 42% response rate. The majority of respondents were female and over 61 years of age. When respondents were asked if they looked for information on food packages while grocery shopping, none of the respondents indicated that they looked for trans fat on the food label. Ninety-six percent of respondents identified that trans fat is found in processed foods, whereas 42% of respondents incorrectly identified trans fat as being found in nonhydrogenated margarines. More female respondents self-reported that they had made dietary changes to decrease trans fat intake as compared with male respondents (p < 0.05). Those participants who made dietary changes to decrease trans fat intake had higher mean knowledge scores than did those who did not make changes (p < 0.043). Sixty-three percent of respondents indicated that they would not make dietary changes to their snack food selections even if their selections contained trans fat. Consumers know a little about trans fats and consider them to be a concern. However, consumers are reluctant to make dietary changes to limit these fats in their snack food selections.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".