MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783822938 · doi:10.1287/mksc.2018.1128

Which Healthy Eating Nudges Work Best? A Meta-Analysis of Field Experiments

2019· article· en· W2783822938 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Romain Cadario, Pierre Chandon

Bibliographic record

VenueMarketing Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsNudge theoryMeta-analysisField (mathematics)PsychologyWork (physics)EconomicsMarketingComputer scienceEconometricsSocial psychologyBusinessEngineeringMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effectiveness of healthy eating nudges in field settings increases as they shift from focusing on influencing cognition to affect to behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.025
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.298 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations497
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarketing ScienceSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207