MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2242123590 · doi:10.1159/000171026

Review Sessions

2012· article· en· W2242123590 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Facts · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteMinistry of Health, State of IsraelAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social networking is a causative factor for obesity in several ways: 1) Obesity is frowned upon socially. Social rejection and isolation produces sadness and depression, which elicits "comfort eating", typically involving highly pleasurable food. The pleasure and distraction of eating eases emotional pain and depression -a form of self-medication. Some obese people even proclaim, "food is my best friend," thus replacing their social networking. This may become a vicious cycle with more weight gain, more rejection, more comfort eating, even lower self-esteem and more isolation, and so on. 2) The brain is averse to emotional pain and undergoes changes to keep the comfort eating behavior going. The person may thus develop a dependence on the pleasure of comforting foods -an actual addiction -which neuromaging data is now confirming. 3 ) Social rejection and isolation of the obese person lowers self-esteem, which tends to result in the person not caring about gaining more weight, another vicious cycle. 4) Fear of social criticism in obese people induces shame and embarrassment. They may thus keep weight issues a complete secret and may be too embarrassed to seek help, a third vicious cycle, plus additional comfort eating to cope with the shame. Social networking can likewise combat obesity in several ways: 1) Social support reverses isolation, sadness, and comfort eating; support groups have been long known to enhance weight loss efforts, e.g. Overeaters Anonymous (OA). 2) Social networking enhances self-esteem, especially when the obese person experiences success at losing weight and becomes a mentor to those just starting out. Being a mentor is a win-win situation, as this also reinforces the mentor's life changes. The goal of food addiction support groups, like OA, is to become a mentor. 3) Social networking offers accountability pledging self-actions to a group takes advantage of peer pressure. 4) A weight loss "buddy" is very desirable to obese individuals, and offers accountability, mutual problem solving and resisting cravings and binges. 5) Online social networking is a new tool, consisting of bulletin boards, chat rooms, success stories, weight loss buddies, and tips. Online social networking can offer the advantage of anonymity, which avoids shame and embarrassment. Non-anonymous online social networking, e.g. Facebook, is less useful. Facebook, as the name implies, is based on face photos , to which obese people are averse, and 93% of Facebook "friends" know each other in real life. Social networks can facilitate breaking the addiction (problem food) cause of obesity. Group support helps the obese person tolerate withdrawal from problem foods and adds motivation to keep going. Re-addiction is prevented by socially learning to cope with life without turning to food.Online social networking will be demonstrated via a website used by thousands of overweight kids. A smartphone app obesity intervention will also be demonstrated, based on the addiction model, which uses extensive online social networking (buddies, groups, and mentors).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.037

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it