Negotiating choice, deception and risk: teenagers’ perceptions of food safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the teenager perspectives of the meaning of food safety, and the implications of those meanings. Design/methodology/approach Five focus groups were conducted with students (aged 12–14) from Calgary, AB. Participants were asked what food safety means to them and probed about their views on the relationship between food safety and packaged foods. Grounded theorizing informed the analysis. Findings Food safety was described as located within the system, located within the individual and located within the edible. Key to these teenagers’ understanding of food safety is the theme of food deception – a deception promulgated by food producers, manufacturers and advertisers who lack transparency about what they are actually selling. Teenagers draw attention to the risks associated with living in an industrialized food environment, and to the tension between safety and the industry-driven motive to sell. Originality/value Individuals start to make independent decisions around food preparation and consumption as teenagers; as present and future consumers, it is valuable to learn their perspectives and knowledge about food safety. More importantly, food safety is not only simply a health-related issue but also a semantic one. This study moves beyond the knowledge deficit approach characterizing most research on the topic. Instead, it probes the range of meanings associated with food safety and how they are worked out, revealing that the teenagers’ construction of food as “risk objects” reveals different links to harm than the food safety interventions typically directed to them.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".