MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Expert Opinion? A Micro-Analysis of Eating Disorder Talk on Dr. Phil

2014· article· en· W16336433 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea LaMarre, Olga Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationFraming (construction)SubjectivityPsychologyEating disordersConversation analysisDiscourse analysisSocial psychologyPsychotherapistPsychoanalysisPsychiatryEpistemologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we explored how eating and identities of individuals diagnosed with eating disorders are constructed on a popular television talk show, Dr. Phil. Informed by conversation analytic and discursive psychological research traditions, we show how Dr. Phil, jointly with guests, constitutes guests as mentally ill and accountable for their illness. Specifically, we highlight Dr. Phil’s unilateral pursuit of a solution to the “puzzle” of the eating disorder, including its origins and meanings, as he enlists the guests’ endorsement of his versions of their situations and experiences. We examine broader implications of such a framing for societal understandings of the subjectivity of individuals diagnosed with eating disorders.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207