Consumer attitudes toward bacteriophage applications to pet food
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a two-part questionnaire to investigate consumer knowledge and attitudes toward bacteriophage applications in pet food, pet food safety, and environmental sustainability. Part 1 included questions about pet food safety, sustainability, and knowledge and attitudes toward bacteriophages. Next, participants reviewed educational materials about each, and Part 2 assessed if this increased knowledge of, or changed attitudes toward, bacteriophage application. Participants (n= 80), were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MT) (n= 45) and Social Media (SM) (n= 35). Mean responses in Part 1 and Part 2 were compared by pairedt-tests, and mean responses between MT and SM were compared byt-tests. Participants reported pet food safety was important to them (combined proportion strongly agree or agree, mean ± SD) (75/80, 94%, MT 4.66 ± 0.60, SM 4.71 ± 0.95) and were most concerned with raw pet food safety (51/80, 64%, MT 3.88 ± 0.80, SM 3.17 ± 1.40). Participants rated environmental sustainability as important (61/80, 76%, MT 3.86 ± 0.94, SM 3.97 ± 0.66); however, it was not a strong driver of pet food purchasing (26/80, 33%, MT 3.31 ± 1.25, SM 2.82 ± 0.82). Overall, data showed an increase in knowledge of bacteriophages following a review of educational material. However, in the SM group, no statistically significant difference was observed in the comfort eating food with bacteriophage additives (SM Part 1 3.37 ± 1.05, SM Part 2 3.48 ± 1.12,p= 0.279), whereas the MT group did show an increase (MT Part 1 3.57 ± 1.01, MT Part 2 4.08 ± 0.92,p< 0.001). In the SM group, no statistically significant difference was observed in comfort feeding their pet food with bacteriophage additives (SM Part 1 3.40 ± 1.03, SM Part 2 3.45 ± 1.14,p= 0.571), whereas the MT group did show an increase (MT Part 1 3.57 ± 0.98, MT Part 2 4.31 ± 0.84,p< 0.001). The strongest objections related to safety concerns (20/53, 38%, MT 2.83 ± 0.96, SM 3.27 ± 0.84). These results demonstrate that despite increasing knowledge, there is still hesitancy among some consumers toward bacteriophage applications in pet food.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".