MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060973217 · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.03.002

Models, monitoring, and the mind: Comments on Wansink and Chandon's “Slim by Design”

2014· article· en· W2060973217 on OpenAlexaff
C. Peter Herman, Janet Polivy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)PsychologyFood intakeValue (mathematics)Food choiceFocus (optics)Social psychologyComputer sciencePsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wansink and Chandon have examined the “mindlessness” that is often evident in everyday food intake. In this commentary, we focus on four issues raised by Wansink and Chandon's paper: (1) the distinction between food choice and food intake; (2) their model of food intake (and how it compares and contrasts with our own model of food intake); (3) the role of monitoring in the control of food intake; and (4) the meaning of “mindless” eating. In each case we find value in Wansink and Chandon's proposals but also an opportunity for further analysis and refinement.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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