MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899254917 · doi:10.1002/jaba.521

Assessing factors that influence young children's food preferences and choices

2018· article· en· W2899254917 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberley L. M. Zonneveld, Pamela L. Neidert, Claudia L. Dozier, Danielle L. Gureghian, Makenzie W. Bayles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyImmediacyFood choiceQuality (philosophy)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have identified an unbalanced diet as a key risk factor in the etiology of many chronic diseases (World Health Organization, ). Although researchers have found that numerous factors influence children's food choices, no assessment exists to identify these factors. In Experiment 1, we established preliminary empirical evidence of children's preferences for healthier and less-healthy foods, and found that 16 of 21 children preferred less-healthy foods to healthier foods. In Experiment 2, we established the utility of an analogue, competing parameters assessment designed to approximate children's food choices in the natural environment. We identified either quality or immediacy as the most influential parameters governing four of four childrens' food choices. We found that effort influenced the efficacy of these reinforcer parameters in a predictable manner for one of four children.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Behavior AnalysisSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207