Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theorists and researchers have long debated as to whether the differences between subthreshold levels of eating disturbances and diagnosable eating disorders are a difference of degree (the continuum hypothesis) or a difference of kind (the discontinuity hypothesis).The present study investigated the relationship between level of eating disordered behaviour and the psychopathology associated with, and thought by some to be prodromal factors in, the development of clinically diagnosable eating disorders.Adolescent female students from both public and private schools, and adolescent female patients in treatment for subclinical or full syndrome anorexia or bulimia nervosa, were classified into five groups (asymptomatic, normal, symptomatic, subclinical, and eating disordered) on the basis of their responses to a questionnaire which provides a measure of current weight-control practices and yields a DSM-IV eating disorder diagnosis.Eating disorder symptomatology and related psychopathology were assessed by the Eating Disorder Inventory-2.A discriminant function analysis was performed to determine the number and nature of the dimensions required to distinguish among the five groups.Two functions were significant.The first function, thinness strivings, distinguishes among the normal, symptomatic, and subclinical groups; the asymptomatic group was equivalent to the normal group, and the eating disordered group was equivalent to the subclinical group.The second function, body dissatisfaction/psychopathology, distinguishes the eating disordered group from the subclinical group, and the asymptomatic group from the normal group.Results are discussed as being consistent with a view of eating disorders as being distinct from below-threshold levels of eating disturbances, and implications for assessment and treatment are discussed. Keywords:Eating disorders, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, subclinical, continuum hypothesis, discontinuity.advice, support, and vision throughout the process of creating this thesis was key at each step of the way.As well, I owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Raymond Koopman, whose insights provided clarity both to the process and the results, and whose involvement was invaluable to the success of this project.I am also appreciative of the support and suggestions of Dr. David Cox, particularly his enthusiasm and encouragement to persevere.Each of these men contributed greatly to the development of this thesis, but more importantly, to my growth as a psychologist and an individual.Fot this, I am ever thankful.In addition, I would like to thank Joan Foster for her valuable
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".