Consumer perceptions of specific design characteristics for front-of-package nutrition labels
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of countries are developing front-of-package (FOP) labels; however, there is limited evidence examining the impact of specific design characteristics for these labels. The current study investigated consumer perceptions of several FOP label design characteristics, including potential differences among sociodemographic sub-groups. Two hundred and thirty-four participants aged 16 years or older completed nine label rating tasks on a laptop at a local shopping mall in Canada. The rating tasks asked participants to rate five primary design characteristics (border, background presence, background colour, 'caution' symbol and government attribution) on their noticeability, readability, believability and likelihood of changing their beverage choice. FOP labels with a border, solid background and contrasting colours increased noticeability. A solid background increased readability, while a contrasting background colour reduced it. Both a 'caution' symbol and a government attribution increased the believability of the labels and the perceived likelihood of influencing beverage choice. The effect of the design characteristics was generally similar across sociodemographic groups, with modest differences in five of the nine outcomes. Label design characteristics, such as the use of a border, colour and symbols can enhance the salience of FOP nutrition labels and may increase the likelihood that FOP labels are used by consumers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it