MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386506756 · doi:10.1016/j.jand.2023.08.135

The Ability of Nutrition Warning Labels to Improve Understanding and Choice Outcomes Among Consumers Demonstrating Preferences for Unhealthy Foods

2023· article· en· W4386506756 on OpenAlex
Simone Pettigrew, Michelle I. Jongenelis, Damian Maganja, Serge Herçberg, Chantal Julia

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood choiceProduct (mathematics)Salience (neuroscience)Unhealthy foodNutrition facts labelQuality (philosophy)Ranking (information retrieval)PsychologyMarketingEnvironmental healthMedicineBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Given growing interest in warning labels as a form of front-of-pack nutrition label, it is important to better understand the mechanisms via which these labels may exert their effects, especially among those making suboptimal food choices. OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to assess the extent to which consumers with the weakest outcomes for objective understanding and choice in no-label conditions were able to improve their understanding and choices after exposure to warning labels on food product options. DESIGN: Post-hoc analyses of the cross-sectional FOP-ICE (Front-of-Pack International Comparative Experimental) study data generated from an online survey that included simulated food choice and nutritional quality ranking scenarios. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Participants included 3,680 adults from the following 18 countries: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States. INTERVENTION: Survey respondents selected their preferred product options and ranked foods according to their healthiness before and after exposure to mock breakfast cereal, cake, and pizza products displaying warning labels. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Objective understanding and food choice were measured. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Within each product category, analyses were conducted on respondents who initially incorrectly identified the healthiest option and/or selected the unhealthiest option as their preferred choice. Significant differences between proportions selecting each understanding and choice response option were assessed using 2-sample z tests for proportions. RESULTS: Salience of the warning labels was low; 46% reported noticing the labels while completing the survey. Just over one-third of those aware of the presence of warning labels were able to identify the least healthy option in the post-exposure condition. Approximately one-half reselected the least healthy option post exposure and just over one-fourth switched to the healthiest option. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that warning labels can assist some consumers to improve their food quality assessments and choices. However, design improvements could enhance the salience and interpretability of this label format.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.272 · 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