MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412026118 · doi:10.1016/j.focha.2025.101033

Seaweed as a sustainable food alternative: A case study of Canadian consumer behaviour

2025· article· en· W4412026118 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed Bilal Basha, Fazli Wahid, Gail AlHafidh, Abdul Ghafar, Pervez Akhtar

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Chemistry Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable agricultureNatural resource economicsBusinessFood scienceEconomicsSustainabilityBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This aim of this paper is to evaluate consumer attitude, behaviour, and purchase intention towards seaweed food products in Toronto, Canada to gain insight into their current market position. The study is descriptive and exploratory in nature. A multi-stage sampling procedure was used with a total of six hundred adult respondents participating. The key variables assessed in the study include health consciousness, environmental factor, taste factor, preference towards innovative diets, barriers in the consumption of seaweed food products, attitude toward seaweed consumption, behavioural intention, and purchase intention toward seaweed foods. SPSS.25 software was used to clarify and analyse the data collected from the respondents, in addition to: Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Pearson Bivariate Correlation, and Independent Sample t-test. The results of the study provide convincing evidence reflecting a positive consumer attitude towards seaweed products in Toronto, Canada. Key indicators from this paper will serve to inform market stakeholders within the food and beverage industry, health and fitness industry and agricultural 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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Chemistry AdvancesSame topicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive PeptidesFrench-language works237,207