Who are you trying to fool: does weight underreporting by dieters reflect self-protection or self-presentation?
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
Nutritionists are well aware that people tend to underreport their weights, but psychologists still often rely on weight self-reports. The present paper reviews research on weight underreporting and attempts to identify its underlying motivations. Restrained eaters (and overweight individuals) are especially likely to underreport their weight. We examine potential reasons for such underreporting in these groups, including (1) perceptual biases that make people misperceive body weight; (2) an impression-management/self-presentation strategy (telling others that one has a more socially desirable weight); or (3) self-protection, with underreporting allowing one to protect self-esteem by convincing oneself that one is thinner than is really the case. The evidence indicates that overweight and restrained women underreport their weight in an attempt to protect themselves. The consistent and motivated underreporting of weight by restrained eaters not only illuminates their psychological functioning, but indicates a bias that may be problematic for research that relies on self-reports.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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