MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211073839 · doi:10.32920/19159565.v1

Healthwashing rhetorical tropes in health-positioned packaged goods

2022· preprint· en· W4211073839 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityProfessional Engineers Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftScope (computer science)MarketingGRASPBusinessNarrativeAdvertisingCompetition (biology)Rhetorical questionFood packagingComputer scienceEngineeringArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div>The current scope of research in consumer-packaged goods has focused primarily on how packaging design is structured to differentiate itself from its competition with the ability to grasp a consumer’s attention in mere seconds. The communicative effects of packaging research span the elements of design as they influence the perception of product attributes and expected consumer experiences. This major research paper explores which elements of packaging design are used in health-positioned products in consumer-packaged goods in Canada and how these elements of design are leveraged to craft a narrative. The framework of packaging design elements and implications from past research is used to support the findings and provide critical</div><div>analysis in conjunction with the content analysis conducted on two well-established health-positioned food brands in Canada, Presidents Choice Free From and Presidents Choice Blue Menu.</div>

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 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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.256 · 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