The Value of Pork Quality in the Eyes of Consumers with Different Beliefs about Traditionally Raised Pork in Edmonton and in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research the value of pork chops with different quality attributes were examined for consumers in Edmonton (with real pork, stated purchase experiments) and across Canada (online survey). Value is examined through stated choice experiments with packaged pork chops labeled with production system (traditionally raised and conventional), as Canadian pork and/or as coming from a farm with Canadian Quality Assurance®. In Edmonton, hog carcass, meat and sensory quality of the pork chops used in the experiments were also investigated. In the national survey marbling was varied and is examined in terms of its influence on pork chop choice. Consumers are studied by groups based on their prior beliefs about traditionally raised pork in comparison to conventional pork. The results suggest that consumer prior beliefs affect consumer purchases of pork chops and play an important role in marketing differentiated pork. The certification of production system was found to be important. Public policy implications include the importance of production system verification by credible independent sources, in this case, usually the government.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".