Improving Understanding about Social Influences on Food Choices in College Students: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of social influences on food choices in college settings is of great importance because students are vulnerable to new forming identities at this time. The purpose of this pilot study is to determine the degree to which social influences impact food choices in a sample of college students. A 22-item survey instrument was created to determine the extent to which students have experienced being influenced by others when making food related purchasing decisions. A total of 257 out of a 323 students invited (80% response rate) in 11 sections of a personal health course responded to the survey. The overwhelming majority of respondents were reportedly comfortable ordering whatever they wanted when in the presence of their friends (n=249; 97%). Students were more likely to feel pressure to make a healthy choice than an unhealthy choice if everyone else was (45.1% vs. 31.5%), but fewer felt this way when asked specifically if their friends were ordering (28.4% vs. 21%). Social influences surrounding food choices are a topic that has gained momentum recently, however more research needs to be conducted to determine the reasons why social influences affect certain college students especially in comparing healthy versus unhealthy food choices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".