Axiology of Cultured Meat and Consumer Perception: An Analysis Based on the Phenomenology of Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a systematic literature review to examine how the axiological values associated with cultured meat influence consumer perception, using the phenomenology of perception as an analytical framework. Fifty-four peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies, identified through the Libraries Worldwide database, were analyzed using NVivo 12 software, based on predefined keywords and a rigorous selection grid. The results highlight several groups of axiological values that shape consumer attitudes, including the previously unexplored "axiological value of co-production" of cultured meat. Specifically, "dogmatic co-production" (e.g., religious or cultural co-production) appears to significantly enhance consumer perception and acceptance of cultured meat. The main limitation of this study lies in the absence of primary phenomenological field data, which may introduce researcher subjectivity inherent in qualitative paradigms. Nevertheless, the use of existing empirical studies ensures the relevance and reliability of this review. This research offers practical implications for communication strategies, suggesting that aligning messages with key axiological values and their amplifiers, particularly those related to co-production, can strengthen trust in and acceptance of cultured meat. For industry stakeholders, these findings provide guidance for value-driven positioning aimed at increasing consumer confidence. Academically, the study offers a novel perspective by integrating axiological analysis with phenomenology in the context of food technology adoption. Socially, it helps identify consumer concerns and expectations regarding the axiological values perceived as essential for the acceptance of cultured meat. The study's originality lies in its application of phenomenological analysis to axiological frameworks and in highlighting the central role of co-production, particularly dogmatic co-production, in shaping consumer perception.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".