Perception of Recycled Plastics for Improved Consumer Acceptance through Self-Reported and Physiological Measures
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
This article aims to provide in-depth insight into how consumers perceive recycled materials in comparison with natural raw materials at both the perceptual and attitudinal levels. To this end, we combined classic self-reported measures of sensory aspects, preferences, environmental attitudes, and consumption habits together with physiological measures of cognitive-emotional processing. Three different materials-two recycled materials, M2 and M3, and one raw material, M1-were chosen for inspection through three different sensory conditions, which we refer to as channels -visual, tactile, and visuo-tactile. The assignation of materials to sensory channels was counterbalanced so that each participant evaluated only one of the materials per channel. Although participants in general were not very accurate in discriminating between the materials, self-reported sensory evaluations showed that M3 (a recycled material that is made to look non-recycled), was clearly less liked. Meanwhile, the psychophysiological analyses revealed higher levels of electrodermal activity for the tactile evaluations of both recycled materials (M2 and M3). Finally, the results from the attitudes and habits evaluations indicate that the participants had positive environmental attitudes yet poor consumption habits. Altogether, these results suggest that some sensorial properties differ between recycled materials and natural raw materials and that there is a chance to improve and implement new consumption habits. The implications of these results are further discussed both in terms of suggestions for designers and methodological recommendations for researchers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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