MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892411884 · doi:10.1002/erv.2642

Compulsive “grazing” and addictive tendencies towards food

2018· article· en· W2892411884 on OpenAlexaff
Revi Bonder, Caroline Davis, Jennifer L. Kuk, Natalie J. Loxton

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Eating Disorders Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood addictionOvereatingBinge eatingAddictionPsychologyAddictive behaviorPersonalityClinical psychologyBig Five personality traitsEating disordersCompulsive behaviorPsychiatryObesityMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence suggests that palatable foods can promote an addictive process akin to drugs of abuse. To date, research in the field of food addiction has focused largely on binge eating as a symptom of this condition. The present study investigated relationships between food addiction and other patterns of overeating, such as compulsive grazing-a behaviour with high relevance to bariatric surgery outcomes. Adults between the ages of 20 and 50 years (n = 232) were recruited for the study. Participants completed questionnaires to assess various eating behaviours and related personality measures. Regression analysis employed the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) as the dependent variable. Results indicated that addictive personality traits, reward-driven eating, and compulsive grazing each contributed unique variance to the YFAS symptom score. These findings provide novel insight into the association between a grazing pattern of overeating and food addiction, and emphasize that similar to traditional addiction disorders such as alcoholism, binge consumption is not the only pattern of compulsive intake.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations95
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Eating Disorders ReviewSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207