Characterization of a food image stimulus set for the study of multi-attribute decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everyday decisions are generally made between options that vary on multiple different attributes. These might vary from basic biological attributes (e.g. caloric density of a food) to higher-order attributes like healthiness or aesthetic appeal. There is a long tradition of studying the processes involved in explicitly multi-attribute decisions, with information presented in a table, for example. However, most naturalistic choices require attribute information to be identified from the stimulus during evaluation or value comparison. Well-characterized stimulus sets are needed to support behavioral and neuroscience research on this topic. Here we present a set of 200 food images suited to the study of multi-attribute value-based decision-making. The set includes food items likely to appeal to those accustomed to North American and European diets, varying widely on the subjective attributes of visual-aesthetic appeal (“beauty”), tastiness and healthiness, as rated by healthy young Canadian participants (N=30-67). The images have also been characterized on objective characteristics relevant to food decision-making, including caloric density, macronutrient content and visual salience. We provide all attribute data by image and show the extent to which attributes are correlated across the stimulus set. We hope this stimulus set will accelerate progress in the study of naturalistic, value-based decision-making.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".