Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40720389›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Research on the generation of food safety network public opinion-Taking the Chinese Mouse Head Duck Neck Incident as an example.

Wei Yang, Jiayin Pei, Zheyu Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wei YangSchool of Business, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China.
Jiayin PeiSchool of Business, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China.
Zheyu LinSchool of Business, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1926-3499

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the frequent occurrence of food safety incidents has posed a serious threat to people's lives and properties, and triggered heated discussions in the whole society. If the relevant departments shirk each other's responsibilities or deceive the public in handling the incident, it will further lead to the generation of network public opinion, which will have an impact on the stability of the society and the credibility of the government. In order to study the generation of food safety network public opinion, this article takes the sudden "mouse head and duck neck" incident in a university in Jiangxi Province, China as an example, and combines text mining with grounded theory. Firstly, the LDA topic clustering model is used to identify six main concerns (topics) of the public during the public opinion period, and the topic words and words with high TF-IDF values under each topic is counted. Based on this, the grounded theory method is used for three-level coding, and then a network public opinion generation model is constructed. It was found that the four main categories of national subjects, public's responses, value orientations, and news media play an important role in the generation process of network public opinion. These findings not only provide a reference for the governance of food safety public opinion in China, but also shed light on public opinion management in other countries, especially when responding to food safety incidents of general significance.

Indexed as

Food SafetyPublic OpinionChinaEast Asian PeopleHumans

Identifiers

PMID40720389
PMCPMC12303279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.