MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204140574 · doi:10.32870/jbf.v1i1.17

Technology, work and eating behaviour

2021· article· en· W3204140574 on OpenAlexaff
Joe Pavelka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavior and Feeding · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeculationWork (physics)PsychologyHealthy eatingFocus (optics)Social psychologyBusinessEngineeringMedicinePhysical activity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper applies a structural lens to exploring the cascading influence of technology on how we work and how it affects the structure of our day, including free time and our eating behaviours. Technology has always altered our eating behaviour by dictating work patterns, the structure of daily life and eating behaviour. Less consideration has been given to a broader speculation of the compounded impact of AI job disruption on patterns of daily life and eating behaviours. This paper draws upon what we know of AI machine learning’s projected impacts on our patterns of daily life, with a focus on its potential impact on how we eat.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavior and FeedingSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207