Relationship Among Family, Peer Networks, and Bulimic Symptomatology in College Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the explanatory power of a sociocultural model in predicting bulimic symptomatology. Specifically, the family and peer systems of a sample of 141 college women were assessed using a variety of measures. The results revealed that high scores on the Bulima Test were negatively correlated with scores on the cohesion subscale of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale. It was also found that the prevalence of bulimic symptomatology within a woman's peer system significantly predicted bulimic symptomatology in subjects. Pressures to diet from family and friends were also found to be associated with higher rates of bulimic symptomatology in these subjects. However, experiences of general problems in the peer systems of these subjects did not significantly predict bulimic symptomatology. Implications of this research are discussed. R E S U M E Cette étude a vérifié les facultés explicatives du modèle socioculturel dans la prévision de la Symptomatologie de la boulimie. Plus particulièrement, on a étudié, à l'aide de divers moyens et sur un échantillon de 141 femmes universitaires, les sytèmes familiaux et les groupes affinitaires. Les résultats ont révélé que des scores élevés sur le Bulimia Test [test
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".