MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313517045 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v24i6.5719

Examining the Factors Influencing Consumers’ Purchasing Intention for Genetically Modified Agricultural Food

2022· article· en· W4313517045 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnamesePurchasingTheory of planned behaviorMarketingConsistency (knowledge bases)Order (exchange)BusinessConstruct (python library)AgricultureRisk perceptionPsychologyControl (management)EconomicsGeographyPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of genetic engineering to food is becoming popular worldwide, especially in UK and USA. However, consumers in Asia remain unsure of the risks and benefits of genetically modified food. To measure the purchase intentions of Taiwanese and Vietnamese consumers using an integrated framework of the attitude model and the behavioral intention model, quantitative research was conducted in which the questionnaires were distributed to respondents living in Taiwan and in Vietnam. The results showed that the dependent variable of consumer attitude was positively impacted by three in-dependent variables including perceived risk to health, perceived benefit to health, and perceived benefit to the environment. The other construct showed no significant effect on consumers’ attitudes in the two countries. The consistency result in both countries between subjective norm and attitude revealed a positive impact on the purchase intention in descending order, while the variable of perceived behavioral control did not contribute to affecting purchase intention significantly. Finally, limitations and suggestions for future studies are also proposed.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207