MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self‐Regulation and the Obesity Epidemic

2011· article· en· W1561768950 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Issues and Policy Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionIncentiveIntervention (counseling)SkepticismLegislaturePrincipal (computer security)PsychologyOptimismPublic economicsSocial psychologyEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer sciencePsychiatryComputer securityMicroeconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The obesity epidemic has provoked considerable concern along with suggestions and demands for corrective measures. After surveying the basic features of the epidemic, we turn our attention to self‐regulation, which is at the heart of most of the proposed solutions to the epidemic. Information, incentives, and most other tactics to get people to eat less and exercise more all rely on self‐regulatory processes. More attention should be paid to the distinction between interventions that depend on individual self‐regulation and interventions that bypass self‐regulation. A detailed examination of self‐regulatory and legislative regulatory alternatives, along with a detailed examination of the causes of the epidemic, leads to the conclusion that we should adopt a cautious and even skeptical approach to intervention. We scrutinize some of the principal proposed solutions to the obesity problem, few if any of which inspire optimism. The severity of the problem does not justify implementing unproven interventions in the absence of reliable evidence of their effectiveness.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.356 · 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