MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605489659

A Consumer Protection Perspective on Regulation for Healthier Eating

2016· article· en· W2605489659 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara von Tigerstrom

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumer protectionPolitical scienceConsumer lawScholarshipHumanitiesWelfare economicsPublic healthBusinessLawSociologyLaw and economicsEconomicsMedicineArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the potential for a consumer protection perspective to complement public health approaches in designing and justifying laws that aim to promote healthier eating, such as food labelling regulations or restrictions on marketing and advertising. Consumer protection and public health are distinct perspectives, but they share the goal of protecting health and both accept the need for regulation to protect important interests. Consumer protection objectives could be used to defend public health measures that are challenged as infringing rights or restricting trade. Insights from consumer law and scholarship could also contribute to discussions about when regulatory intervention to promote healthier eating is justified and the form that intervention should take. Since those working in public health and consumer protection have been engaged in similar debates, they have much to learn from each other and may be able to support each other in pursuit of common goals. L’auteure explore la possibilite qu’une perspective de protection des consommateurs vienne s’ajouter aux approches en matiere de sante publique pour ce qui est d’elaborer et de justifier des lois qui visent a promouvoir une alimentation plus saine, par exemple des reglements sur l’etiquetage des denrees alimentaires ou des restrictions sur le marketing et la publicite. La protection des consommateurs et la sante publique sont des spheres distinctes, mais elles ont un objectif commun, proteger la sante, et les deux reconnaissent la necessite d’une reglementation pour proteger les interets importants. Les objectifs de la protection des consommateurs pourraient etre utilises pour defendre des mesures de sante publique contestees comme portant atteinte aux droits ou restreignant le commerce. Les enseignements du droit de la consommation et de l’erudition pourraient aussi enrichir les discussions sur le moment ou une intervention reglementaire visant a promouvoir une alimentation plus saine est justifiee et sur la forme que cette intervention devrait prendre. Puisque les travailleurs des domaines de la sante publique et de la protection des consommateurs ont ete engages dans des debats similaires, ils ont beaucoup a apprendre les uns des autres. Ils pourraient aussi etre en mesure de s’appuyer mutuellement dans la poursuite d’objectifs communs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.052
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0160.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207