Internal and external moderators of the effect of variety on food intake.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many factors contribute to how much we eat. One such factor is the variety of different foods available. The current article reviews the variety literature with a specific focus on the factors that moderate the effects of variety on food intake and that moderate the processes that may underlie the variety effect (i.e., sensory-specific satiety and monotony). The moderators have been categorized as being of either an internal nature or an external nature. The literature suggests that internal moderators, including characteristics such as gender, weight, and dietary restraint, do not act as moderators of the variety effect. One possible exception to the absence of internal moderators is old age. Alternatively, external moderators, such as particular properties of food and the eater's perception of the situation, appear to affect the strength of the variety effect on intake to some degree. An evolutionary hypothesis may account for the distinct roles that internal and external variables play in moderating the variety effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it