MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509441896 · doi:10.1002/eat.20939

Childhood emotional abuse and eating symptoms in bulimic disorders: An examination of possible mediating variables

2011· article· en· W1509441896 on OpenAlexafffund
Patricia Groleau, Howard Steiger, Kenneth R. Bruce, Mimi Israël, Lindsay Sycz, Anne‐Sophie Ouellette, Ghislaine Badawi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychopathologyPerfectionism (psychology)Eating disordersPsychologyClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Affect (linguistics)Disordered eatingPsychiatryBulimia nervosa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate prevalences of childhood emotional abuse (CEA) in bulimic and normal-eater control groups, and to replicate previous findings linking CEA to severity of eating symptoms in BN. We also examined potential mediators of the link between CEA and disordered eating. METHOD: Women diagnosed with a bulimic disorder (n = 176) and normal-eater women (n = 139) were assessed for childhood traumata, eating-disorder (ED) symptoms and psychopathological characteristics (ineffectiveness, perfectionism, depression, and affective instability) thought to be potential mediators of interest. RESULTS: CEA was more prevalent in the bulimic than in the nonbulimic group, and predicted severity of some eating-symptom indices. Ineffectiveness and affective instability both mediated relationships between CEA and selected ED symptoms. DISCUSSION: We found CEA to predict eating pathology through mediating effects of ineffectiveness and affective instability. CEA might influence severity of ED symptoms by impacting an individual's self-esteem and capacity for affect regulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207