What's eating North America's edible insect industry? An examination of psychological, cultural and regulatory barriers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although research has demonstrated the positive nutritional value and environmental benefits associated with edible insect consumption, several factors challenge the growth and development of the edible insect industry for human consumption in the US and Canada. Cultural and psychological factors account for much of the aversion US and Canadian consumers display. The absence of specific regulation also constitutes a structural barrier to more widespread production and sale of edible insects. Compared to the US, the European Union has a more developed edible insect industry and has enacted legislation that removes some of the barriers. As consumer awareness of the putative health benefits of edible insects increases, more comprehensive regulations may emerge to keep pace with the growth of this industry. Overall, a multi-disciplinary approach that addresses both benefits and barriers to consumption is needed to facilitate a robust market for edible insects in the US and Canada.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it