Safe food refrigeration knowledge, attitudes, and practices of university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Students living in university residence halls often have refrigerators for food storage, and are often living alone and handling food for the first time in their lives. Therefore, an investigation of their safe food storage practices is important to help prevent food-borne illness in this population. This research seeks to evaluate the food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices related to food storage and refrigeration among undergraduate students at a university campus. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional study was conducted by administering a questionnaire to undergraduate students (n = 93) living in two residence halls on a university campus. Findings Many respondents (43.3 percent) were unaware of the maximum temperature a refrigerator should be set at to prevent microbial growth, while 83.7 percent reported ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ checking the temperature of their refrigerator using a thermometer. Many respondents (43.1 percent) incorrectly ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the smell and appearance of food can be used as an indicator for food safety, and 64.1 percent self-reported often or always using this practice. Respondents that were born outside of Canada had more positive food storage attitudes, while those that identified as Caucasian had higher knowledge scores. A positive correlation was identified between knowledge and attitude scores (r = 0.217) but neither were significantly associated with practice scores. Originality/value The study revealed gaps in the knowledge, attitudes and practices of university students living in residence halls related to safe food storage. Hence, there is a need to increase awareness and education in this population on key food storage practices.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".