MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999399086 · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376801

Food Literacy while Shopping: Motivating Informed Food Purchasing Behaviour with a Situated Gameful App

2020· article· en· W2999399086 on OpenAlexaff
Marcela C. C. Bomfim, Sharon I. Kirkpatrick, Lennart E. Nacke, James R. Wallace

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedGrocery shoppingPsychologyModerationHealthy eatingPsychological interventionFood choiceLiteracyPurchasingMarketingBusinessMedicineSocial psychologyComputer sciencePedagogyPhysical activity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishing healthy eating patterns early in life is critical and has implications for lifelong health. Situated interventions are a promising approach to improve eating patterns. However, HCI research has emphasized calorie control and weight loss, potentially leading consumers to prioritize caloric intake over healthy eating patterns. To support healthy eating more holistically, we designed a gameful app called Pirate Bri's Grocery Adventure (PBGA) that seeks to improve food literacy—meaning the interconnected combination of food-related knowledge, skills, and behaviours that empower an individual to make informed food choices— through a situated approach to grocery shopping. Findings from our three-week field study revealed that PBGA was effective for improving players' nutrition knowledge and motivation for healthier food choices and reducing their impulse purchases. Our findings highlight that nutrition apps should promote planning and shopping based on balance, variety, and moderation.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207