I Spy With My Little Eye: Cognitive Processing of Framed Physical Activity Messages
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
The primary purpose was to examine the relative cognitive processing of gain-framed versus loss-framed physical activity messages following exposure to health risk information. Guided by the Extended Parallel Process Model, the secondary purpose was to examine the relation between dwell time, message recall, and message-relevant thoughts, as well as perceived risk, personal relevance, and fear arousal. Baseline measures of perceived risk for inactivity-related disease and health problems were administered to 77 undergraduate students. Participants read population-specific health risk information while wearing a head-mounted eye tracker, which measured dwell time on message content. Perceived risk was then reassessed. Next, participants read PA messages while the eye tracker measured dwell time on message content. Immediately following message exposure, recall, thought-listing, fear arousal, and personal relevance were measured. Dwell time on gain-framed messages was significantly greater than loss-framed messages. However, message recall and thought-listing did not differ by message frame. Dwell time was not significantly related to recall or thought-listing. Consistent with the Extended Parallel Process Model, fear arousal was significantly related to recall, thought-listing, and personal relevance. In conclusion, gain-framed messages may evoke greater dwell time than loss-famed messages. However, dwell time alone may be insufficient for evoking further cognitive processing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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