MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122965619

Consumer preferences for milk and yogurt attributes: How health beliefs and attitudes affect choices

2012· article· en· W3122965619 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shannon Allen, Ellen Goddard

Bibliographic record

Venue2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)PurchasingProduct (mathematics)Consumption (sociology)MarketingWillingness to payFood choiceHealth claims on food labelsHealth belief modelBusinessPsychologyFood scienceEnvironmental healthPublic healthEconomicsMedicineHealth promotionMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from a Canadian national survey assessing dairy product preferences in 2011, individual preferences for milk and yogurts with specific attributes are examined in this study. Statements developed based on the Health Belief Model, food attitudes, beliefs about the role that nutrition plays in health, nutrition knowledge, and an individual’s propensity to make changes to improve their health are used to predict whether or not respondents consume milk/yogurt, the frequency with which they consume it, which type of product they typically consume, and how much they would be willing to pay for new milk or yogurt attributes. Results indicate that several aspects of the Health Belief Model as well as general nutrition knowledge can predict purchasing and consumption intentions for milk and yogurt products. All else being equal, the influences on an individual’s willingness to pay for unique milk or yogurt characteristics in stated choices are different then the influences on their self-identified willingness to seek out milk or yogurt to increase calcium in their diet.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, WashingtonSame topicCulinary Culture and TourismFrench-language works237,207