MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281639063 · doi:10.1145/3533390

Food, Mood, Context: Examining College Students’ Eating Context and Mental Well-being

2022· article· en· W4281639063 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrab Bin Morshed, Samruddhi Shreeram Kulkarni, Koustuv Saha, Richard Li, Leah Galante Roper, Lama Nachman, Hong Lu, Lucia Mirabella, Sanjeev Srivastava, Kaya de Barbaro, Munmun De Choudhury, Thomas Plötz, Gregory D. Abowd

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMicrosoft (Canada)
FundersNational Institutes of HealthSemiconductor Research Corporation
KeywordsContext (archaeology)MoodPsychologyAnxietyAffect (linguistics)Mental healthEating disordersClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)Disordered eatingDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deviant eating behavior such as skipping meals and consuming unhealthy meals has a significant association with mental well-being in college students. However, there is more to what an individual eats. While eating patterns form a critical component of their mental well-being, insights and assessments related to the interplay of eating patterns and mental well-being remain under-explored in theory and practice. To bridge this gap, we use an existing real-time eating detection system that captures context during meals to examine how college students’ eating context associates with their mental well-being, particularly their affect, anxiety, depression, and stress. Our findings suggest that students’ irregularity or skipping meals negatively correlates with their mental well-being, whereas eating with family and friends positively correlates with improved mental well-being. We discuss the implications of our study in designing dietary intervention technologies and guiding student-centric well-being technologies.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Computing for HealthcareSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207