Paper detail

Biased Bytes: On the Validity of Estimating Food Consumption from Digital Traces

Given that measuring food consumption at a population scale is a challenging task, researchers have begun to explore digital traces (e.g., from social media or from food-tracking applications) as potential proxies. However, it remains unclear to what extent digital traces reflect real food consumption. The present study aims to bridge this gap by quantifying the link between dietary behaviors as captured via social media (Twitter) v.s. a food-tracking application (MyFoodRepo). We focus on the case of Switzerland and contrast images of foods collected through the two platforms, by designing and deploying a novel crowdsourcing framework for estimating biases with respect to nutritional properties and appearance. We find that the food type distributions in social media v.s. food tracking diverge; e.g., bread is 2.5 times more frequent among consumed and tracked foods than on Twitter, whereas cake is 12 times more frequent on Twitter. Controlling for the different food type distributions, we contrast consumed and tracked foods of a given type with foods shared on Twitter. Across food types, food posted on Twitter is perceived as tastier, more caloric, less healthy, less likely to have been consumed at home, more complex, and larger-portioned, compared to consumed and tracked foods. The fact that there is a divergence between food consumption as measured via the two platforms implies that at least one of the two is not a faithful representation of the true food consumption in the general Swiss population. Thus, researchers should be attentive and aim to establish evidence of validity before using digital traces as a proxy for the true food consumption of a general population. We conclude by discussing the potential sources of these biases and their implications, outlining pitfalls and threats to validity, and proposing actionable ways for overcoming them.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.