Fizzy foibles: examining attitudes toward sugar-sweetened beverages in Michigan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health educators are increasingly publicizing the noxious health effects of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB). American counties are implementing SSB taxes, as modeled after the ‘success’ of tobacco policies, to address the ‘obesity crisis’. Under-explored is how the linking of SSB to a stigmatized condition, ‘obesity’, has affected attitudes toward the purchasing and consumption of SSB and those individuals who purchase and consume SSB. This study sought to explore individuals’ attitudes and experiences with SSB in rural Michigan. Three themes emerged: Negativity, Egregious beverages and Implicated imbibers. These attitudes were situated within a context of increased exposure to SSB health discourses, particularly among younger participants. Additional themes arose regarding which SSB were labelled especially problematic, who should or should not be drinking SSB, as well as the consequences of drinking SSB. Pop/soda, energy drinks, and diet pop/soda were identified as particularly harmful, albeit for different reasons – sugar, caffeine, and unnatural additives. Many participants reported reacting negatively when they saw children of higher weights drinking SSB, though judgement was reserved for parents. Ultimately, SSB and their consumers appear increasingly stigmatized in ways that carry important equity implications for already marginalized groups.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it