Tell Me What You Waste and I’ll Tell You Who You Are: An Eight-Country Comparison of Consumers’ Food Waste Habits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using an original survey conducted in eight countries in 2021 (Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, the UK, and the USA), this study explored the relationship between household food waste and dietary habits through a cross-country comparative perspective. In total, 8000 questionnaires were recorded from samples representative of the adult population of each country through an online survey conducted between the 13th and the 24th of August. The questionnaires were developed from the Waste Watcher International Observatory on Food and Sustainability, an international study of the social, behavioral, and lifestyle dynamics behind household food waste. The relationships between the per capita self-reported amount of food waste (expressed in kilocalories) and self-declared dietary habits (traditional, healthy and sustainable, vegetarian, smart, and confused) were estimated using multiple linear regression models. The results showed that smart diets are associated with higher values of food waste in Canada, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Vegetarian diets are associated with lower food waste values in China, Germany, the UK, and the USA, but not in Italy, Russia, and Spain. The share of the population adopting a smart diet was, on average, 2.7% of the sample; therefore, interventions for food waste reduction should focus on these specific types of consumers, who are often associated with larger amounts of food waste.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".