“Where everybody knows your name”: How regulars at farmers' markets differ from less-frequent shoppers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of consumers at three farmers' markets (FMs) was done near Vancouver, British Columbia. The markets span urban and suburb locales, and the survey's 234 respondents were asked questions about shopping behavior, attitudes toward FMs, and demographic information. The focus of the analysis is on the differences between regulars and non-regulars to the market, where a regular is considered a shopper who shops weekly or bi-weekly. The results show that regulars spend more ($46.36 vs. 33.19 for non-regulars), are much more likely to expect higher prices compared to grocery stores than non-regulars, and buy more products (4.15 vs. 3.1). Regulars also value attributes of FMs differently: they value variety, organic products, and being locally-grown more highly. Organic purchasing behavior is also significantly different with regulars much more likely to say they “always” or “usually” buy organic products. As this is the first study to explicitly analyze regulars at FMs, suggested research directions and methods are offered to help guide future research.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".