Comparing the motivational basis for dietary regulation in women using versus not using commercial weight-loss programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Objective: Grounded in Organismic Integration Theory (OIT; Deci & Ryan, 2002), the purpose of this study was to examine motivational differences for dietary intake between women using versus not using commercial weight-loss programs (CWLP). Methods: Two cohorts of women completed this study as part of Project D.I.N.E.S. (Dietary Intake, Nutrition, and Eating Study). Group 1 (n = 55; Mage = 34.16±13.29 years) were enrolled in Weight Watchers™. Group 2 (n = 55; Mage = 42.11±14.26 years) reported no current enrollment in any CWLP at the time of data collection. Participants completed an online questionnaire assessing demographics plus dietary motives within a non-experimental, cross-sectional research design. Results: Multivariate Analysis of Variance revealed omnibus differences between the groups (Wilks Lambda (6, 103) = 0.85, F = 3.03, p < .01). Identified regulation was the only dietary motive that differed between the groups (F = 9.96, p < .01). Women using CWLP (M = 6.49, SD = 0.65) reporting higher identified regulation scores than women not using CWLP (M = 5.99, SD = 0.98). Discussion: Women using CWLP to manage body weight value the personal importance of eating a healthy diet to a greater extent than women not using CWLP. The apparent lack of differences in other motives for eating suggests a possible distinct motivational signature affiliated with dietary regulation in cohorts using CWLP that can be explored and tested using OIT (Deci & Ryan, 2002) to shape interventions designed to optimize weight-control.Acknowledgments: Funding Source: Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".