Canadian Consumers’ Perceptions of Sustainability of Food Innovations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educated consumer food choices not only enhance personal health but can also contribute to environmental, economic, and social well-being, as well as food sustainability. This exploratory study examines Canadian consumers’ perceptions of sustainable and innovative food, along with their sources of information. It uses nationwide survey data and statistical tests (chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis tests) to test differences between different demographic groups. Results show that consumers refer mostly to the ecological aspect of food sustainability in their perceptions and food-buying behavior. Web-based information was a widely consulted source of information about food-related sustainability and innovation, although it ranked low among consumers in terms of trust level. The most trusted sources of information about food sustainability and innovation were mainly institutional—medical professionals and university scientists. Survey results also demonstrate that perceptions of sustainability and trust in sources of information varied in different socio-demographic segments. The current insights can be used to guide policymakers in making informed guidelines and recommendations to inform Canadian consumers about sustainable food-consumption practices.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".