MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097223523

of Canada’s Health Check Food Information Program Modelling Program Effects on Consumer Behaviour and Dietary Practices

2016· article· en· W7097223523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogo (programming language)PurchasingNutrition informationReceiptConsumer behaviourTest (biology)Meaning (existential)Product (mathematics)Nutritional informationCalorie
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A conceptual model was proposed and tested in order to link attitudinal and awareness factors that might explain changes in food purchase behaviours and dietary patterns related to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada’s Health Check food information program. Methods: Two hundred food shoppers completed a survey inquiring about demographics, diet-related health conditions, attitude toward healthy food purchases, use of food package information, and awareness, perceived value and reported use of the Health Check logo. Participants provided their receipt for groceries purchased and completed a dietary fat assessment. Path analysis was used to test the model. Results: Shoppers purchasing a Health Check product had lower fat intakes than shoppers who did not (30.4 % vs. 33.9 % calories from fat; p<0.05). There was strong association (ß=0.81; p<0.001) between logo awareness and use, and the meaning consumers attributed to the logo moderated this relationship (ß=0.53; p<0.01). Logo awareness was related to general use of food package information (ß=0.14; p<0.05) and attitude toward

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207