Expression of executive control in situational context: Effects of facilitating versus restraining cues on snack food consumption.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of executive function (EF) on objectively measured high-calorie snack food consumption in 2 age groups and to explore the moderating influence of environmental cues. METHODS: In Study 1, 43 older adults (M(age) = 74.81) and in Study 2, 79 younger adults (M(age) = 18.71) completed measures of EF and subsequently participated in a bogus taste-test paradigm wherein they were required to rate 3 highly appetitive (but high-calorie) snack foods on taste and texture. Grams of snack food consumed was measured covertly in the presence randomly assigned contextual cues (explicit semantic cues in Study 1; implicit visual cues in Study 2) that were facilitating or restraining in nature. RESULTS: Findings indicated that in both age groups, stronger EF predicted lower consumption of snack foods across conditions, and the effects of EF were most pronounced in the presence of facilitating cues. CONCLUSIONS: Older and younger adults with weaker EF tend to consume more high-calorie snack food compared with their stronger EF counterparts. These tendencies appear to be especially amplified in the presence of facilitating cues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".