MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389624554 · doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100910

Insights into Canadian consumer perceptions and behavior in the lobster industry: Implications for sustainability and economic development

2023· article· en· W4389624554 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sylvain Charlebois, Divya Thomas, Ning Sun, Janet Music

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agriculture and Food Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)SustainabilityPerceptionDescriptive statisticsConsumer behaviourConceptual frameworkBusinessMarketingEconomicsFisheryPsychologyEcologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research within the lobster industry has often overlooked significant determinants that influence perceptions of lobster consumption. In response, this study aims to examine Canadian perceptions toward the Canadian lobster industry and to assess the impact of socio-demographics, consumer motivation, sustainability, economic diversity and equity, and traceability on the enjoyment of lobster consumption. An extensive cross-national survey was conducted, following a conceptual framework. Descriptive analysis and cumulative link models were deployed for data analysis. The outcomes indicate that Model 5 exhibits the best fit. Based on the findings from Models 2 and 5, key determinants influencing consumer preferences for enjoying lobster consumption include a preference for vegan diets, marital status, one's history of lobster purchases, the frequency of lobster consumption, the perceived importance of price, and support for the Canadian economy. In future research, natural language processing (NLP) techniques will be employed to gain deeper insights into consumer perceptions and behaviors within the Canadian lobster industry.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agriculture and Food ResearchSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207