Entomophagy knowledge, behaviours and motivations: the case of French Quebeckers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introducing entomophagy (insect consumption), a common practice in many countries around the world, in Western countries is a great challenge. Aiming to expand the adoption of this novel food requires an understanding of consumer’s acceptability towards edible insects, ultimately feeding into regionalised marketing approaches. As entomophagy bears strong cultural ties, it was hypothesised that previously non-surveyed French Quebeckers (QC-FR; n=472) would exhibit knowledge, behaviours, and motivations similar to both their French European (EU-FR; n=97) ancestors and their modern day English North American (NA-EN; n=103) neighbours. In several instances, no differences between the three populations were observed: respondents’ prediction on the future growth of entomophagy, intent of non-consumers to try insects, willingness of consumers to repeat their experience, frequency of consumption, and quantities of insects consumed. However, QC-FR appeared more aligned with EU-FR concerning their knowledge of entomophagy, perception of its current status, and motivations for trying insects. Finally, QC-FR exhibit a distinction from NA-EN and EU-FR with their heightened attention to environmental or health motivations for consuming insects and a higher proportion of respondents with no prior insect consumption experience. The almost ubiquitous (96%) knowledge of entomophagy, widespread prior insect consumption experience (67%), and nearly generalised willingness to eat insects again amongst those who had already done so (90%) suggest that entomophagy has a very promising potential in the Western world. This is especially true amongst young environmentally conscious males, though product adoption lays challenges regarding appearance, culture, and texture, thus requiring targeted marketing approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".