Food choices of young women by level of cognitive dietary restraint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare young women's dietary intakes and usual food choices by level of cognitive dietary restraint (CDR). 135 healthy, non‐obese, 19–35 yr old women completed questionnaires including the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire – Restraint subscale (TFEQ‐R; Stunkard & Messick, 1985) and the Diet History Questionnaire (DHQ; NIH, 2002) which assesses qualitative and quantitative usual dietary intake. Data were analyzed by CDR level (low, mid, high). Energy, carbohydrate and fat intake did not differ by CDR level. Protein intake (absolute and relative) was higher among restrained eaters as were energy‐adjusted niacin, vitamin E, sodium, selenium, magnesium and iron intakes. Food group serving numbers did not differ by CDR level except that meat product intake was higher for restrained eaters (specifically, poultry and fish/seafood intakes were higher while red meat intakes were similar). Women with high CDR reported a lower frequency of eating hamburgers, chips, French fries, chocolate, ice cream, and candy but a higher frequency of soft drink use. The fat used during food preparation did not differ in frequency of use or usual type chosen. Those with high CDR were more likely to choose diet soft drinks and light/fat‐free options for ice cream and salad dressing, but did not differ in use of light/fat‐free options for meat, snacks or added fats, or high fiber options for grain products. While women with high CDR appear to avoid foods typically considered “less healthy” or “fattening”, their energy and quantitative nutrient intakes are generally similar to those with lower CDR. Supported by CIHR 79563
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".