Consumer Innovativeness in Food Industry: From Literature Review Some Indications for Business Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Through the analysis of literature, the evolution of consumer’s behaviour is traced, although with broad strokes, with the purpose of outlining the consumer innovativeness related to the sector, in anticipation of the imminent and relevant innovations in food field. Final objective is that of highlighting the principal trends which determine the modern consumer’s choices in food sphere. Methodology. The explorative-type research is essentially based on a systematic analysis of literature in theme of bent to innovation in the consumer’s behaviour. Findings. The trend which is changing the attitude to create innovative products in food field will be determined not only by the changes in the consumer’s behaviour but above all by the necessity of including such changes in the innovation process, realized by companies.Research limits. The objective difficulty in the identification of a unanimous definition of innovation does not allow to be able to carry out such an empirical survey to measure the consumer innovativeness, especially in food field.Practical implications. The deep changes intervened in the life system of consumers on the one hand, and the succeeding each other of events that have profoundly conditioned the agro-food sector on the other hand, have been subjects of studies to understand the new approach of consumers to the food offer, useful for the companies in the definition of product innovation politics. Originality of the study. The limited literature in the field of consumer innovativeness, much more in the agro-food field, makes the present research original in its attempt of theoretical systematization of concept of bent to consumer’s innovation in food field.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".