MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966781489 · doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2014.114

Nudging, shaming and stigmatising to improve population health: Comment on “Nudging by shaming, shaming by nudging”

2014· article· en· W1966781489 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin Voigt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNudge theoryShameFeelingPsychologySocial psychologyPopulationMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nudges are small, often imperceptible changes to how particular decisions present themselves to individuals that are meant to influence those decisions. In his editorial, 'Nudging by shaming, shaming by nudging', Eyal highlights links between nudges and feelings of shame on the part of the 'chooser'. In this commentary, I suggest two further distinctions between different types of shame-based nudges that should affect our assessment of such nudges.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0660.073
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.430 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health Policy and ManagementSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207