MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005729346 · doi:10.3390/foods9020202

Attitudinal Determinants of Beef Consumption in Venezuela: A Retrospective Survey

2020· article· en· W3005729346 on OpenAlexaff
Lilia Arenas de Moreno, Nancy Jerez-Timaure, Jonathan Emanuel Valerio-Hernández, Nelson Huerta-Leidenz, Argenis Rodas‐González

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraceabilityMarketingBusinessConsumption (sociology)ButcherQuality (philosophy)CredenceAgricultural scienceFood scienceMathematicsGeographyStatisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumer surveys were conducted in the Western, Central, and Eastern regions of Venezuela to determine buying expectations, motivations, needs, perceptions, and preferences of beef consumers, and their acceptance of domestic (and foreign) beef, as affected by different intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Data (n = 693) were gathered by face-to-face interviews on the way out of fresh markets, butcher stores, supermarkets, and, in some cases, at home by using a 45-question structured questionnaire. Responses were subjected to factorial analysis of correspondence (FA) and hierarchical cluster analysis. From the FA, the first two factors explain 74% of the common variance. Factor 1 comprises intrinsic attributes such as color, smell, tenderness, flavor, juiciness, and freshness; while Factor 2 contains extrinsic attributes, mostly related to the origin. The FA profiling data showed that it is possible to concentrate on the traits that consumers usually use as a criterion to perceive beef quality, and to purchase beef. Using cluster analysis, four groups of consumers were mainly distinguished by region, intrinsic attributes, and credence attributes related to production system, aging, traceability, and hygiene. Results from this study will be helpful in designing strategies for recovering and enhancing the future, domestic beef demand.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207