MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Taste, food intake and obesity

2001· review· en· W2075328173 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

VenueObesity Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalatabilityTasteFood intakeObesityFood choiceFood preferencePsychologyMedicineFood scienceNeuroscienceBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research in human eating behaviour prior to 1990 has shown that taste impacts the palatability and selection of food for intake; sensory-specific satiety; satiation; and thermic effect of food. Research in the last decade has added information to these areas; expanded the field to comparisons of the impact of 'wanting' vs. 'liking' food on intake, and provided insight into the relationship of food intake and brain functioning through new imaging techniques. This article will review literature from the last decade on research in the area of taste and its impact on food intake. Emphasis will be placed on differences seen between lean and obese humans and how these may contribute to the development of human obesity. Suggestions for future research directions will also be discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.253 · 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