Meat reduction, vegetarianism, or chicken avoidance: US omnivores’ impressions of three meat-restricted diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Meat consumption has a variety of implications in society. While various types of meat-restricted diets exist to address this, not enough is known about how the average meat consumer views different avenues to lessening their intake. In response, this study aims to assess US omnivores’ impressions of three meat-restricted diets. Design/methodology/approach An online survey was administered to a cross-sectional, census-balanced sample from Nielsen of 30,000+ US adults. Omnivores ( N = 928) were randomized into one of the three conditions where they were asked about their perceptions of a vegetarian diet, a reduced-meat diet or a chicken-free diet as individuals not currently following that dietary pattern. Findings The findings showed that omnivores had a more favorable perception of a reduced-meat diet on a greater number of study variables as compared to the vegetarian or chicken-free diets. The research also demonstrated that a majority of omnivores were in the precontemplation stage of cognitive change, suggesting that most American omnivores are not actively demonstrating a readiness to alter their meat consumption in the ways presented. Originality/value This research is the first to examine the comparative trends around these three diets among omnivores. It also speaks to how the desirability of meat restriction varies by type of approach, i.e. elimination or reduction, and if the latter, what type. The findings may be of relevance for efforts to reduce global meat consumption for ethical, health, or environmental reasons.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".