MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776222935 · doi:10.17306/j.jard.2017.00336

Evaluation of Lithuanian consumers’ attitudes to genetically modified food

2017· article· en· W2776222935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ingrida Lukošiutė, Laura Petrauskaitė-Senkevič

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agribusiness and Rural Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithuanianGenetically modified foodGenetically modified organismBusinessProduct (mathematics)Food productsOrder (exchange)Quarter (Canadian coin)Willingness to payLabellingMarketingAgricultural scienceEconomicsFood scienceGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this investigation is to present the results obtained during the survey of Lithuanian consumers in order to identify their attitudes towards food with genetically modified organisms (GMO). Investigating the consumers approach to genetically modified (GM) food, the following were considered: consumers' opinions on GMO were analyzed, their knowledge about the presence of food containing GMO on the Lithuanian market, the mandatory GM food labelling, the behavior to a transgenic product while shopping, as well as consumers' willingness to purchase such products. Data were gathered through a survey of 1000 Lithuanian residents. The empirical results indicated that the majority of the respondents' attitudes towards food containing GMO are negative. The older consumers with less income are more against GM food compared to younger, wealthier households. 72% of consumers know that if the food contains GMO it must be indicated on the label. However, many consumers who oppose GMO do not try to avoid paying attention to the components of the product listed on its label. Only about a quarter of consumers while buying a product look for such information. This indicates that consumers are not really interested in whether or not the product contains GMO.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agribusiness and Rural DevelopmentSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207