MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2885491305 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v10n9p66

Exploration of Motives and Barriers on Indonesian Organic Products Consumption

2018· article· en· W2885491305 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tony Wijaya, Purwoko Purwoko

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)BusinessOrganic productMarketingIndonesianProduct (mathematics)Descriptive statisticsAdvertisingFocus groupSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to explore consumer motives and barriers related to the consumption of organic products. The research was conducted using survey method. Respondents in this study are fixed consumers of organic products incorporated as members of the Indonesian Organic Community. Data is collected incrementally. Initial data were collected through an open survey, then Focus Group Discussion was conducted to classify the stimulus from consumers. The next data is collected in a closed and analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and descriptive. Based on the analysis indicates that the motives of consumers to consume organic based on the benefits of organic products is health, safety, naturalness, and the importance of maintaining environmental balance. External factors that determine the choice in the consumption of organic products is a life partner, family, friends or colleagues, while those used as a reference purchase is a media of information such as magazines and television in the form of talk shows and nutritionists. It is a barrier to consumption of organic products is the availability of sellers (ease in obtaining products), product prices, consumer income, knowledge and information of authenticity (validity) of organic products.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicOrganic Food and Agriculture→French-language works237,207→