MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098597697

CONSUMER AND MARKET DEMAND AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH NETWORK The Role of Sensory Experiences and Information on the Willingness to

2007· article· en· W7098597697 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillingness to paySensory systemContingent valuationValuation (finance)TastePrice premiumAgricultureSample (material)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the size and the determinants of the price premium a sample of Edmonton-area consumers was willing to pay for organic wheat bread. The development of these premiums included consideration of providing information on health or environmental advantages of organic production and consideration of sensory (taste) acceptance. To do this conventional and organic wheat was grown under similar conditions and milled and baked into 60 % whole wheat bread under identical conditions. Samples of these breads were presented to consumers for sensory acceptance and a survey of their attitudes, behaviours and characteristics. The survey included a closed-ended contingent valuation question to examine consumers ’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) premiums for the organic bread. A trained sensory panel was used to quantify differences in the sensory characteristics of the two breads. The results suggest that in the absence of taste information respondents ’ WTP when environmental information was provided was greater than WTP when health information was given. When sensory taste information was included, however, the WTP estimates

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesFrench-language works237,207