School learner's perceptions of the factors that influence methamphetamine use in Manenberg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the use of insects in food products has increased. Insects are a sustainable ingredient that is high in protein. However, consumption in Western countries is low, and this may be due to poor sensory qualities, expense, availability, and food neophobia. The objectives of this study were to determine Atlantic Canadian consumers' attitudes toward entomophagy and to assess consumers' perception of cricket-based protein powders. There were two phases to this study: in phase one, participants (n = 107) completed a survey about their attitudes toward consuming insects (Specific Beliefs and Attitudes about Insect Consumption Scale created by Ruby, Rozin, & Chan 2015), and in the second phase, participants (n = 102) were asked to evaluate four different protein powders (two contained crickets) using 9-point hedonic scales and a CATA questionnaire. Then, the participants were again asked to complete the aforementioned survey. Before consuming cricket protein powder, most participants thought that insects were a sustainable protein source, but also thought that the consumption of insects was undesirable. However, after consuming cricket protein powder, the participants were willing to buy cricket powder and were willing to recommend it to their friends. For insect consumption to become acceptable in the Western world, it will need to be integrated slowly to reduce consumers' fear and negative attitudes. Protein powders are consumed by many people in the Western world and are an excellent candidate to allow for the integration of insects into their diets. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: This study demonstrated that consumers in Atlantic Canada are more willing to eat insects after having tried them in protein powders. Additionally, protein powders represent a familiar context for consumers and allow for the acceptable integration of cricket powder. Consumers are willing to buy and recommend crickets to their friends after consuming them (in a processed form); however, they still have concerns that insects may carry harmful microbes and toxins.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".