Edible insect marketing in Western countries: wisely weighing the foodstuff, the foodie, and the foodscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite secular consumption of insects in many regions of the world, this practice remains marginal in Western countries. Although entomophagy is slowly gaining mainstream visibility, it often triggers consumer acceptance only on a trial basis driven in part by adventurousness, environmental concerns, health benefits, food security issues, or a combination thereof. This paper draws from the consumer and ingestive behaviour literatures and from the growing entomophagy sphere of knowledge in order to surface possible tactics that could overcome consumer-level barriers and thus accelerate the adoption (and not only trial) of insects and promote its sustained consumption. We propose that more effective promotion of entomophagy may be achieved through acknowledgement and a deeper understanding of three separate, but mutually-influencing, families of factors that affect food choices and eating behaviours: (1) the foodstuff proper or a food’s attributes that satisfy established and evolving consumer preferences; (2) the foodie or a consumer’s characteristics including the degree of adventurousness and the relative importance given to various attributes and benefits of a product; and (3) the foodscape or characteristics of the food culture and environment including distribution and merchandising decisions that shape consumers food choices. Together, the assessment of these three factors allow for the better identification of promising strategies to reach a larger group of potential consumers and to promote the regular consumption of insects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".