Intentions to adopt safe food storage practices in older adults
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to apply the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to determine which psychosocial factors are predictors of older adults’ safe food storage practices at home. Design/methodology/approach An online structured questionnaire was developed and administered to older adults (60+). Two behavioural intention outcomes were investigated: thawing meats safely and storing leftovers within recommended guidelines. The survey instrument measured socio-demographic and TPB variables: attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and intentions. A measure of self-reported habitual behaviour was also recorded and used to determine whether past practice influenced behavioural intentions. Findings Respondents ( n =78) demonstrated good intentions to safely defrost meats and store leftovers. The models accounted for 41 and 48 per cent of the variance in intentions to perform safe storage behaviours. Attitudes and subjective norms were predictors of intentions to safely thaw meats. Habitual behaviour was a significant predictor of behavioural intentions to safely store leftovers. Perceived behavioural control was a significant predictor of intentions to thaw meats and store leftovers. Research limitations/implications The sample size was small, and results are to be interpreted with caution. Practical implications The results indicate that theory-based solutions to solving food safety among consumers may be a feasible strategy. Originality/value The study is the first of its kind to apply the TPB to this consumer group.
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