Examining the Causes of Irrational Food Buying and Delaying Gratification as a Solution
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impulsive food buying resulting in waisted items and emotional regrets is regarded as biased buying behaviours through irrational decision making. Extensive previous research has brought forward projection bias, associative memory and episodic foresight, emotions and impulsivity, affective forecasting, and physical arousal as some of the contributors to the tendency to pursue immediate rewards of thrill and satiation over delayed and long-term fulfillment. The present study focuses on the causes of this phenomenon from the psychological perspective, identifying various internal and environmental factors and their relevance based on evidence of past research. It closely compares the Rational Choice Theory with actual shopping behaviours and challenges a fixed definition of objectivity and rationality in decision making. It then attempts to make connections between the cognitive causes of irrational decision making and immediate gratification, suggesting that postponing gratification may help with making more rational decisions when browsing for foods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it