Social desirability, dietary intakes, and variables related to attitudes and behaviours towards eating among French-speaking adults from Quebec, Canada: The PREDISE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to examine how social desirability is associated with self-reported measures of dietary intakes and variables related to attitudes and behaviours towards eating. This analysis was conducted in 1083 adults (50.0% women) from the PREDISE study. Social desirability was assessed using the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) questionnaire, which includes two subscales: (1) self-deceptive enhancement (SDE), i.e., having an overly positive self-image and (2) impression management (IM), i.e., intentional response distortion to please. BIDR total score and IM subscore were positively associated with the Canadian Healthy Eating Index (C-HEI) ( ß = 0.24 and ß = 0.50; p ≤ 0.0003), calculated using data from three self-administered 24 h food recalls. All BIDR scores were positively associated with self-determined motivation for eating regulation (0.03 ≤ ß ≤ 0.06; p < 0.0001), measured by the Regulation of Eating Behavior Scale, and with the intuitive eating score (0.02 ≤ ß ≤ 0.05; p < 0.0001). Also, all BIDR scores were negatively associated with hunger and disinhibition scores measured by the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (−0.17 ≤ ß ≤ −0.09; p < 0.0001). All these associations were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and the education level. Furthermore, controlling for both dimensions of social desirability did not impact the magnitude of the association between self-determined motivation (the strongest predictor of healthy eating in the PREDISE study) and C-HEI. According to our results, associations are observed with diet quality, as well as with attitudes and behaviours towards eating; therefore, a measurement of social desirability responding would be pertinent in studies using those or related variables.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".