Food product design: emerging evidence for food policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research on the impact of specific brand elements such as food descriptors and package colors is underexplored. We tested whether a "light" color and a "low-calorie" descriptor on food packages gain favorable consumer perception ratings as compared with regular packages. Our online experiment recruited 406 adults in a 3 (product type: Chips versus Juice versus Yoghurt) × 2 (descriptor type: regular versus low-calorie) × 2 (color type: regular versus light) mixed design. Dependent variables were sensory (evaluations of the product's nutritional value and quality), product-based (evaluations of the product's physical appeal), and consumer-based (evaluations of the potential consumers of the product) scales. "Low-calorie" descriptors were found to increase sensory ratings as compared with regular descriptors and light-colored packages received higher product-based ratings as compared with their regular-colored counterparts. Food package color and descriptors present a promising venue for understanding preventative measures against obesity.[Formula: see text].
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 | 0.022 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.003 |
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".