MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385880558 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19173

Costa Rican consumer perceptions of gene-editing

2023· article· en· W4385880558 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Maximiliano Macall, Johnny Madrigal-Pana, Stuart J. Smyth, Andrés Gatica-Arias

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersFundación Bancaria Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de BarcelonaUniversidad de Costa Rica
KeywordsAgricultureFood securitySustainabilityPerceptionBiotechnologyGeographySocioeconomicsMarketingPsychologyBiologyBusinessSociologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Costa Rica's rice production, a large determinant of the country's food security, is being negatively impacted by frequently increasing periods of intense drought. Costa Rican scientists have applied CRISPR/Cas9 to develop drought resistant rice varieties they believe the country's rice producers could benefit from. However, would Costa Ricans consume gene edited rice or products derived from this crop? A three-part, 26-question survey administered in-person to 1096 Costa Ricans uncovers their attitudes, knowledge, and perceptions of gene editing technology and crops. Multiple regressions were built where the independent variables were age, gender, education level, and subjective economic situation. No statistically significant relationships were found in the regression coefficients. Moreover, the k-means procedure (cluster analysis) was used to categorize respondents according to their attitudes on the consumption of gene-edited foods: negative, neutral, and positive. Results show that overall, Costa Rican consumers are open to the application of gene editing in agriculture and would consider consuming products derived from the application of the technology. They are also open to gene editing technology being used to address human and animal health issues. However, Costa Rican consumers are not open to gene editing being used to "design" human traits. This study adds evidence to the emerging literature on the acceptance of gene-edited food. It also highlights the importance of informing societies of just how vulnerable agriculture, and therefore food security, is to the increasingly adverse effects of climate change.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207