MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200281154 · doi:10.3390/ijerph182413262

Applying Customer Journey Mapping in Social Marketing to Understand Salt-Related Behaviors in Cooking. A Case Study

2021· article· en· W4200281154 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Erik Cateriano-Arévalo, Lorena Saavedra‐Garcia, Vilarmina Ponce-Lucero, J. Jaime Miranda

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPan American Health OrganizationInternational Development Research CentreUniversity of South Florida
KeywordsContext (archaeology)MarketingControl (management)BusinessConsumption (sociology)AdvertisingPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, salt consumption exceeds the World Health Organization's recommendation of a daily intake of 5 g. Customer journey mapping is a research method used in market research to understand customer behaviors and experiences and could be useful in social marketing as well. This study aimed to explore the potential of customer journey mapping to better understand salt-related behaviors performed during the preparation of household cooking. We tracked the journey of four women in their kitchens for approximately two hours to observe the preparation of lunch. Individual journey maps were created, one for each woman, that were composited into a single journey map. We found that customer journey mapping was a suitable research method to understand how food preparers made decisions around adding salt and artificial seasonings at each stage of the journey. In contrast to the interviewee' responses, it was observed that the four women added salt and artificial seasonings consistently and incrementally with little control and without any standard measure. In this study, we demonstrate the utility of customer journey mapping in a novel context and nudge social marketers to include this tool in their repertory of research methods to understand human behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicCulinary Culture and TourismFrench-language works237,207