Canadian Consumer Concerns About Food Safety Issues and Confidence in Food Products: Comparison of Beef and Pork
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In examining consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for food attributes, one approach is to use economic experiments, sometimes associated with consumers sensory testing. In this particular research project different types of pork chops are examined to identify consumer WTP for pork chop credence attributes such as traditionally raised, Canadian Pork labelled or identified as coming from a farm with on farm food safety accreditation (CQA). However, the results of the research are only useful for the national industry if the participants’ values can be extrapolated to the Canadian population. The participants in the research completed a survey that was similar in many respects to a national on-line survey completed in Canada two months earlier. Comparing the responses from the pork study to the national on line survey can help identify how different the respondents are. The pork study participants self studied to be part of a consumers panel for the Alberta Food Product Testing Centre in Edmonton. Respondents in both groups have less confidence in pork relative to other food products. Respondents in the pork survey were mostly concerned about antibiotics in meat while national survey respondents were mostly concerned about animals genetically modified for meat, egg or dairy production. In terms of human health issues, pork survey respondents were mostly concerned about while national survey respondents were more concerned about unhealthy eating. Respondents in the pork survey had lower risk perception scores for pork and were more willing to accept the risks of eating pork than the national panel assessed either beef or chicken.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".