MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6992877781

Motivations et obstacles à l'achat de fruits et légumes locaux: un sondage pancanadien

2011· report· fr· W6992877781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2011
Typereport
Languagefr
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood supplyMarket competitionLeague
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’achat local est une pratique qui prend\nde l’ampleur ces dernières années chez\nles consommateurs canadiens. Il s’agit\ncertes d’une opportunité pour\npromouvoir l’agriculture et les produits\nd’ici. Pourtant, au Canada, très peu\nd’études se sont intéressées aux\nmotivations et aux comportements des\nconsommateurs qui sont favorables à\nl’achat local. Or, il faut en connaître\ndavantage sur cette pratique afin de\nmaximiser ses nombreux bénéfices. Il\ns’agit, en effet, d’une nouvelle pratique\ninnovatrice qui constitue une force sur\nlaquelle il faut miser davantage pour\nappuyer le développement de nos\ncommunautés.\nRéalisée par Équiterre, en partenariat\navec la firme Léger Marketing, cette\nrecherche s’appuie sur un sondage\npancanadien mené en août 2010 auprès\nd'un échantillon de 1 121 Canadiens et\nCanadiennes, âgé(e)s de 18 ans et plus\npouvant s'exprimer en français ou en\nanglais. La recherche vise à mieux\ncomprendre les habitudes alimentaires des Canadiens, les représentations et les\nmotivations associées aux aliments\nlocaux, en particulier les fruits et\nlégumes, ainsi que les freins à l’achat\nlocal.\nLa recherche s’appuie également sur une\nrevue de littérature sur le sujet dans\nd’autres pays afin de dégager les\nprincipaux constats.\nSoulignons également la pertinence de la\ndernière partie de l’étude qui, suite aux\nprincipaux constats de l’enquête sur les\nfacteurs qui mènent à l’achat local,\ndégage diverses stratégies pour\nmaximiser la commercialisation des\nproduits locaux.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)→French-language works237,207→