A role for enjoyment for encouraging fruit consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work investigated the value of highlighting the enjoyment conferred by fruit for encouraging fruit consumption. Study 1 investigated the effects on fruit consumption of visualizing eating fruit that was either enjoyable, not enjoyable, or was unassociated with enjoyment. Study 2 investigated the effects on fruit consumption of health promotion posters that featured either enjoyable or less enjoyable fruit. Both studies used an independent-groups design, where young adults (Study 1, N = 142; Study 2, N = 221) were randomized to conditions, and outcomes: intentions to consume fruit, attitudes towards fruit, immediate fruit selection, subsequent fruit consumption; and a range of characteristics likely to be associated with fruit and vegetable consumption were assessed. In Study 1, higher intentions to consume fruit and more positive attitudes towards fruit were associated with higher likely enjoyment of the fruit visualized, higher fruit liking in general and higher fruit-related self-efficacy (smallest Beta = 0.270, p = 0.02). In Study 2, similar effects were found for likely enjoyment of the fruit featured on a poster; higher likely enjoyment also predicted greater immediate fruit selection (smallest Beta = 0.122, p = 0.03). These outcomes were also associated with variables often associated with fruit and vegetable consumption. Subsequent fruit consumption was only associated with past fruit consumption (smallest Beta = 0.340, p = 0.05). These two studies (Study 1 using visualisation, Study 2 using health promotion posters) highlight a role for enjoyment for encouraging fruit consumption. The value of enjoyment and the simplicity of the poster intervention particularly should be noted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".