Differences in the Effects of Visual Cues on the Hunger of Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty men and 20 women from the University o f Western Ontario and its affiliate colleges were recruited to complete a study regarding the effects that images of food have on hunger. It was hypothesized that women would have more increased feelings of hunger after being exposed to images of low-caloric foods than high-caloric foods, and men would have increased feelings of hunger after seeing images of high-caloric foods than low-caloric foods.\nIndividuals completed a five-point scale o f immediate hunger, and then were shown images of either high-caloric or low-caloric foods, which they wrote a descriptive paragraph about in order to ensure that the images were viewed adequately. Participants then reassessed their hunger on a five-point scale. The results found no main effect for gender (male/female) or food image condition (high-calorie/low-calorie), but an interaction effect was found between the independent variables, F (1,36) = 1.12, p < 0.05, partial p n² = 0.18. Issues and improvements of the design were discussed, as well as suggestions for future studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".