An investigation of the effect of awareness and knowledge on emergency planning for food service establishment operators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Current legislative deficit could leave food service establishments without sufficient food safety plans allowing food safety standards to decline during emergencies and increasing risk for foodborne illness. Relevant research indicates there is likely to be a lack of planning and action and lack of accessible resources on the behalf of operators and governmental agencies respectively (Story, 2007). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this research was to elucidate the relationship between the dependent variable: food service establishment operator’s level of emergency planning and two independent variables: their level of knowledge and level of awareness. METHODS: A list of suitable candidates was generated using Yellowpages and potential candidates were randomly selected by numerical draw. These individuals were surveyed in person and this process was repeated until 30 contacts were acquired. The data was compiled in Excel for differential statistical analyses and SAS for Chi-squared testing for statistical significance. RESULTS: Chi-square testing indicated a p-value of >0.05 for both data sets; therefore, no association was found between both food operator’s knowledge and awareness and their level of emergency planning and both null hypotheses were rejected. Mean, median, and mode values were determined to fall within the neutral-high value for the ordinal scale. CONCLUSION: Neither awareness and knowledge had a statistically significant relationship to the level of the operator’s level of emergency planning. All tested categories were of neutral-high score values meaning the surveyed data did not find a deficiency in operator planning. These results could be indicative of error in survey design meaning further research on this topic will be necessary to determine a conclusive relationship between these variables.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".