MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061194197 · doi:10.1509/jppm.23.2.193.51400

Meta-Analyses of the Effectiveness of Warning Labels

2004· article· en· W2061194197 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Policy & Marketing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallModerationPsychologyComprehensionCompliance (psychology)Affect (linguistics)Reading comprehensionSocial psychologyProduct (mathematics)Reading (process)Cognitive psychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceCommunicationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors use a series of meta-analyses to demonstrate the impact of warning labels across five dimensions of effectiveness: attention, reading and comprehension, recall, judgments, and behavioral compliance. Subsequent moderator analyses indicate that attention is moderated by vividness-enhancing characteristics, warning location, and familiarity but not by product type. None of the moderating variables affect either reading and comprehension or recall. Product type moderates judgments, and familiarity and cost of compliance moderate behavioral compliance. The authors discuss public policy implications and avenues for further research.

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 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.258 · 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