Perceived racial discrimination and eating habits: Systematic review and conceptual models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context there is no systematic organization of the available evidence about the relationship between racial discrimination and eating habits. Also, there is no consensus about its causal mechanism. Objectives a systematic review was conducted to synthesize evidence on the association between perceived racial discrimination and eating habits (eating behavior and food consumption). A conceptual model was developed to depict the most common mechanisms used to explain this association. Data Sources articles and dissertations were retrieved from the PubMed, EMBASE, Lilacs, and PsycINFO databases from inception to January 2021. Data Analysis 19 studies were included. The assessment of methodological quality was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. On average, the studies showed a methodological quality of 66%. Forty-six associations were evaluated. There were 38 associations between perceived racial discrimination and negative eating habits, 29 concerning eating behavior, and 17 regarding food consumption. Conclusions perceived racial discrimination negatively affects eating habits. A broader conceptual framework based on ecosocial theory is suggested to guide future research that would include different racial discrimination dimensions, such as internalized and structural.
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 | 0.023 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".