Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study of the impact of GM labeling of cereals revealed little impact of brand familiarity or GM label on consumer response overall. However, examination of the responses based on consumer characteristics reveals that certain consumers are more responsive to the labeling than others. GM labels are likely to be more relevant for certain segments of shoppers than others. They also may have different effects when used by well-known national food manufacturers rather than smaller brands. Despite the existence of a strong opposition among some consumers, genetic modified (GM) foods are firmly established in North American markets and have a growing presence even in Europe where opposition has historically been much stronger. The main issues of debate center now on whether and how they are to be labeled. After several years of intense discussions, a Canadian panel involving members of government, consumer groups, grocery retailers, and food manufacturers representatives have agreed on a system of voluntary labels for foods that contain or do not contain genetically modified organisms or are derived from genetically modified plants. Over the last few years, there has been substantial growth in expressed opposition to food grown from genetically modified seeds (GM foods). Part of the concern and
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".