Influence of consumers' health risk perception of unwholesome foods on the purchase of pre-packaged foods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Packing food has been around for a long time. Food safety rules become increasingly important in the policy as people's lives and consumption patterns evolve. Everyone is always worried about food safety since it is an essential issue in public health. A systematic questionnaire was utilised to collect information from Sunyani people of Ghana to validate this study's findings. 376 persons were used for this study, and the sample utilised face-to-face distribution procedures for the questionnaire, including open-ended questions. The data was analysed using IBM-SPSS version 25.0. The number of consumers who typically buy pre-packaged food differs considerably by gender between those who purchase pre-packaged foods rarely and those who buy frequently (p-value of 0.049). This is also true for respondents who are married, separated, or never married, as they are also significantly different (p-value of 0.004) regarding whether they occasionally or frequently purchase prepackaged food. The survey also found that most respondents read food labels as part of a healthy lifestyle, with an odds ratio of 2.21 (95% CI 1.27 – 3.85) times more than other explanations. This study's findings also revealed that most respondents only read food labels to check for nutritional information, with an odds ratio of 2.18 (95% CI 1.07 – 4.41) times compared to other reasons. The public should be more aware of the need to read pre-packaged food labels since this will notify them of any potential problems after ingesting that product.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it