MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033068529 · doi:10.1177/1359105312456323

Gaining perspective: The effects of message frame on viewer attention to and recall of osteoporosis prevention print advertisements

2012· article· en· W2033068529 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah O’Malley, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)RecallFrame (networking)AdvertisingPsychologyMedicineCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined how framed messages affect viewer attention to and cognitive processing of osteoporosis prevention print ads. Attention was measured with eye tracking technology. Cognitive processing was assessed through masked recall. A total of 60 college-aged women viewed 12 gain-framed, 12 loss-framed, and 12 neutral-framed ads. Number of fixations, dwell time, and recall of gain-framed osteoporosis prevention ads were higher than loss-framed or neutral-framed ads, p < .01. Message recall was positively correlated with the number of fixations and dwell time for the gain-framed and neutral-framed messages, p < .01. These findings provide preliminary insight into potential mechanisms underlying message framing effects.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207