How much should I eat? Situational norms affect young women's food intake during meal time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portion size and the intake of others have been found to influence people's food intake. No study, however, has tested the potential influences of both types of situational norms on intake during the same eating occasion. We experimentally tested the effects of manipulating portion size and the intake of others on young women's meal intake during a 20 min eating opportunity. An experimental design with a three (confederate's intake: small, standard, large) by two (portion size: small, standard) between-participants design was used. A total of eighty-five young women participated. Portion size and the confederate's intake both influenced young women's intake. Participants consumed more when offered a larger portion than when offered a smaller portion, and they also ate more when their eating companion ate more. The present results indicate that the effects of portion size and the intake of others were independent but additive. Thus, both types of situational norms might independently guide an individual's intake during a single eating occasion.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".