MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Students’ knowledge and attitudes towards GMOs and nanotechnology

2019· article· en· W6959672241 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoveltyTheme (computing)PublishingKnowledge levelPositive attitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

© 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate knowledge and attitudes toward genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and nanotechnology among the Canadian youth demographic. The primary objective of this pilot study was to investigate the knowledge and attitudes toward GMOs and nanotechnology among first year university students. The secondary objective was to compare knowledge and attitudes toward GMOs and nanotechnology among students studying nutrition as to students who do not study nutrition. Design/methodology/approach: A questionnaire was developed by researchers and student volunteers. This questionnaire was distributed to first year university classes at Western University. The multiple-choice questions were analyzed using SAS, and open-ended questions were analyzed using theme analysis. Findings: GMO knowledge was strong for both populations, however questions related to the percentage of GM foods grown in Canada indicated nutrition students had a stronger GMO knowledge (p = 0.031). Open-ended questions revealed overall attitudes toward GMOs were either unsure or negative between both populations. Nutrition students had a more positive attitude toward nanotechnology, and a slightly stronger knowledge regarding applications of nanotechnology (p = 0.006). Theme analysis indicated that participants enrolled in nutritional studies were less apprehensive toward GMOs. No differences were indicated in open-ended questions related to nanotechnology between both groups, which may be due to the lack of awareness related to the novelty of the technology. Research limitations/implications: Without a validated questionnaire, this reduces the reliability of the results from the questionnaire. The questionnaire was carefully designed by combining previous studies questionnaires, as well as producing questions from related literature, which increases the reliability and accuracy of the questionnaire. In addition, the questionnaires underwent several rounds of pre-piloting as well as multiple revisions with current health-care professions to increase the reliability and accuracy of the questionnaire. Practical implications: This study will assist in understanding the current knowledge of GMOs and nanotechnology among first year university students. This will then allow us to understand if knowledge has a factor in altering students’ attitudes toward these technologies. If students do not have a strong knowledge toward these technologies, then this may lead to the potential implementation of education regarding GMOs and nanotechnology. As these technologies are emerging and being used in everyday food items, individuals should be aware of the implications, as well as the benefits of these technologies. Originality/value: This is the first study regarding this topic in Canada. Results from this study provide baseline data that may be used to conduct future research.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207