MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969514131 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7902_14

Using the PAI With an Eating Disordered Population: Scale Characteristics, Factor Structure, and Differences Among Diagnostic Groups

2002· article· en· W1969514131 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyPopulationPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyMedicineCartographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychometric properties of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey 1991) within an eating disordered sample seeking treatment (N = 238) and differences among eating disorder diagnostic groups on the PAI were examined. The PAI showed acceptable alpha coefficients, item-total correlations, and interitem correlations. The factor structure was similar to that reported by Morey (1991), with the addition of another factor related to interpersonal coolness and distance. Those with binge eating disorder (BED) reported fewer problems and less distress in general compared to other eating disordered groups. The BED and bulimia nervosa groups were different from the anorexia nervosa groups in frequency of matching on two PAI clusters. Use of the PAI with an eating disordered population and its utility in understanding eating disorder diagnostic groups is supported.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.284 · 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