MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089055771 · doi:10.1002/oby.22992

How Does the Probability of Purchasing Moderately Sugary Beverages and 100% Fruit Juice Vary Across Sugar Tax Structures?

2020· article· en· W3089055771 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachel B. Acton, Sharon I. Kirkpatrick, David Hammond

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPurchasingOddsSugarFruit juiceBusinessFood scienceMedicineMarketingChemistryLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes are increasingly used to discourage sugar intake; however, the impact on consumer preferences for particular products is largely unknown. This study explored the impact of two tax structures (tiered vs. nontiered and inclusive vs. exclusive of 100% fruit juice) on participants' probability of purchasing moderately sugary beverages and 100% fruit juice. METHODS: A sample of 3,584 Canadians aged 13 years and older completed a series of beverage purchasing tasks, each corresponding to a different tax condition, within an experimental marketplace. Tax conditions included a no-tax control, plus four taxes varying by structure (tiered vs. nontiered) and whether or not 100% fruit juice was included. RESULTS: The odds of purchasing a moderately sugary beverage were higher under tiered versus nontiered taxes. Purchases of higher sugar beverages differed little across tiered versus nontiered structures. Odds of purchasing 100% fruit juice were lower when these products were taxed versus not taxed. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that two key tax structures are likely to function as expected; taxes including 100% fruit juice products may lead to lower probability of purchasing fruit juice, and taxes incorporating multiple tiers may be more likely to encourage purchases of moderately sugary products than nontiered formats.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesitySame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207