MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W98804257 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.164601

Trans-Border Reformulation: US and Canadian Experiences with trans Fat

2014· article· en· W98804257 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Food and Agribusiness Management Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessProduct (mathematics)MarketingPromotion (chess)Quality (philosophy)Value (mathematics)Distribution (mathematics)AgribusinessAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food managers are engaged in altering the nutritional quality of diets. They do so directly through product innovation strategies (food manufacturers) and the selection of products available in stores (grocers and restaurants) and indirectly through distribution and promotion strategies and prices. Decisions to alter products, menus, assortments and marketing strategies are drivers of supply, which interact with consumer demand to impact the nutritional quality of food available, purchased and eventually consumed. The sequence of managerial decisions leading to product-level marketing mixes is explored. This case-study provides a comparison of monitored industry self-regulation of trans fat (Canada primarily) and more autonomous firm strategy (US primarily) on the nutrient quality of new cookies launched between 2006-12. Cookies were selected for this case-study given that they are commonly consumed and have traditionally contained trans fat. Differences between food labeling policies in the US and Canada are then compared to explore the merits of a conceptual model.

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)0.003
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Food and Agribusiness Management ReviewSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207