An Empirical Analysis of the Adoption of Food Safety and Quality Practices in the Canadian Food Processing Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIS CHAPTER ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER TWO QUESTIONS: What are the relationships between the degree of adoption of food safety and quality practices and establishments’ characteristics? And what are the associations between the adoption of food safety and quality practices and market performances of food processing establishments? Data on the adoption of food safety and quality practices were obtained from the 1998 Survey of Advanced Technology in the Canadian food processing industry. Three safety and five quality-oriented practices were identified in the survey. To analyze the impact of adoption of food safety and quality practices on market performance of Canadian food processing establishments, information from the 1998 survey was linked to data from the Annual Survey of Manufacturers. The 1998 Survey reported that 94 percent of the Canadian food processing establishments use at least one of the eight practices, 74 percent use four or more, and 42 percent use six or more. The Survey indicated also that good manufacturing practices, continuous quality improvement, acceptance sampling, and hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP) are the food safety and quality practices most commonly used by the Canadian food processing establishments. The study shows that adoption intensity of food safety and quality practices is very closely linked to establishments’ characteristics. In particular, the results indicate that size, country of control, and innovativeness have more influence than industry, major markets served, or level of inspection on the adoption intensity of food safety and quality practices. Moreover, the results suggest that establishments in the Canadian food processing industry are more likely to adopt a combination of food safety and quality oriented practices than to adopt safety or quality oriented practices alone. For market performance, the results provide some evidence that the adoption of food safety and quality practices is positively associated with establishments’ performance. In particular, the results suggest that adoption intensities and market shares are closely linked.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".