Reciprocal Markov Modeling of Feedback Mechanisms Between Emotion and Dietary Choice Using Experience-Sampling Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With intensively collected longitudinal data, recent advances in the experience-sampling method (ESM) benefit social science empirical research, but also pose important methodological challenges. As traditional statistical models are not generally well equipped to analyze a system of variables that contain feedback loops, this paper proposes the utility of an extended hidden Markov model to model reciprocal the relationship between momentary emotion and eating behavior. This paper revisited an ESM data set (Lu, Huet, & Dube, 2011 Lu, J., Huet, C., & Dubé, L. (2011). Emotional reinforcement as a protective factor for healthy eating in home settings. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 94(1), 254–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.110.006361[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) that observed 160 participants' food consumption and momentary emotions 6 times per day in 10 days. Focusing on the analyses on feedback loop between mood and meal-healthiness decision, the proposed reciprocal Markov model (RMM) can accommodate both hidden (“general” emotional states: positive vs. negative state) and observed states (meal: healthier, same or less healthy than usual) without presuming independence between observations and smooth trajectories of mood or behavior changes. The results of RMM analyses illustrated the reciprocal chains of meal consumption and mood as well as the effect of contextual factors that moderate the interrelationship between eating and emotion. A simulation experiment that generated data consistent with the empirical study further demonstrated that the procedure is promising in terms of recovering the parameters.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".