MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301766389 · doi:10.1177/2055102915624512

Homeostasis balance, homeostasis imbalance or distinct motivational processes? Comments on Marks (2015) ‘Homeostatic Theory of Obesity’

2016· review· en· W2301766389 on OpenAlexaff
Luc G. Pelletier, Camille Guertin, J. Paige Pope, Meredith Rocchi

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology Open · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomeostasisObesityHuman obesityBalance (ability)Weight gainPsychologyBody weightNeuroscienceBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his article, ‘Homeostatic theory of obesity’, Marks suggested that imbalances in homeostatic processes could explain weight gain and obesity. He proposes that over-consumption of high-caloric, low-nutrient and low satiating foods, combined with a stressful environment, is the origin of weight gain. Once weight gain occurs, individuals may develop body dissatisfaction and negative affect, leading to continued over-consumption, which sets in motion a system of feedback loops that leads to a Circle of Discontent and further weight gain. In this article, we attempt to clarify certain problematic aspects of Marks framework and identify specific directions that researchers should pursue to address these shortcomings.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Psychology OpenSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207