Why Are Alternative Diets Such as “Low Carb High Fat” and “Super Healthy Family” So Appealing to Norwegian Food Consumers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspiring for health and fitness has become increasingly important for Norwegians. This is expressed in many ways. For instance there has been a significant increase in the proportion who states that they are very interested in having a healthy diet. Furthermore, three out of ten stated that they had tried diets to achieve weight reduction over the past twelve months. One consequence of this trend is a consumption field that requires a multitude of products and services. This includes everything from food and dietary products that help you realize the dream of a sound, slim, strong, smart and sexy body, to books, blogs and TV shows that guide the individual towards making the right food choices. Through media, books and product launches, consumers are continuously exposed to different theories and beliefs about what and how to eat. A typical characteristic of the diets that have gained wide acceptance over the past few years is that they are in conflict with the national guidelines for a healthy diet. Another tendency is that traditional products in the Norwegian diet such as bread, potatoes and dairy products, in particular, have been up for debate. The purpose of this article is to explore why these alternative and rebellious diets have become so appealing to today’s food consumer. Data are derived from both quantitative and qualitative materials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".