MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208758172 · doi:10.1111/joca.12507

Treat yourself: Food delivery apps and the interplay between justification for use and food well‐being

2023· article· en· W3208758172 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Affairs · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingFood productsMarketingBusinessPsychologyQualitative researchSocial psychologyPublic relationsAdvertisingPolitical scienceSociologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examines the relationship between justification for use and well‐being in respect to mobile food delivery apps (FDA). Adopting an interpretivist qualitative approach, the study offers contributions to the FDA and food well‐being literature by uncovering four groups of licensing effects that consumers use in justifying FDA use. Those licensing effects can have either positive or negative influence on consumers' well‐being depending on the degree to which consumers engage in self‐regulation, awareness, and conscious managing of their relationship with food. The study also unravels the importance of dealing with the tensions between FDA use and well‐being by shedding light on feelings of guilt and financial anxiety related to FDA use.

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 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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.281 · 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