Diet vs Sugar-Sweetened Soda Preferences and Attitudes in a Sample of Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North American adolescents' consumption of sodas is of concern in the face of the obesity epidemic. We wished to determine if their perceptions about sugared and diet sodas were reflected in their blinded preferences. Our n=194, with an average age of 15.2 years, and a response rate of 97%. Among respondents, 3% stated that they strongly preferred diet soda, 3% somewhat preferred diet soda, 37% strongly preferred sugar-sweetened soda, 27% somewhat preferred sugar-sweetened soda, and 30% had no preference between diet and sugar-sweetened soda. The average rating for sugar-sweetened soda was 5.9 vs 5.1 vs diet sodas. The r2 was 0.034 (p=0.73) between actual sugar content and taste rating. Public health campaigns that wish to convert adolescents from sugar-sweetened to diet sodas would do well to lessen adolescents' concerns about health risks of diet sodas, and manufacturers might consider that adolescents seek tastes in soda beyond merely sugar consumption.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".