Evaluation of meal support training for parents and caregivers using a video and a manual.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the helpfulness of the contents of a video and manual for training parents and caregivers in providing meal support for eating disordered youth. METHOD: A self-report questionnaire consisting of closed and open-ended questions was given parents or caregivers of 52 new consecutive referrals to the specialized eating disorder program at British Columbia Children's Hospital. RESULTS: The return rate was 77%. Sixty-five percent of the families were dealing with a youth diagnosed with anorexia nervosa, 33%, eating disorder not otherwise specified, and 2%, bulimia nervosa. The meal support training resources were deemed informative by the parents who reviewed the material. Parents most valued hearing about the youth's experience of the eating disorder and their feelings around food. CONCLUSION: As a minimum initial intervention, the combination of the manual and DVD/video was found to be convenient to use and was well received by families with eating disordered youth. These resources could be used by clinician treating an eating disordered youth and his or her family in order to start addressing the food issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".