MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978065826 · doi:10.1080/10640260701667920

The Object Relations of Bulimic Women in Context: An Integration of Two Studies

2007· article· en· W1978065826 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah L. Pollack, Rachel A. Keaschuk

Bibliographic record

VenueEating Disorders · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject relations theoryEgocentrismPsychologyObject (grammar)Context (archaeology)Social psychologyInterpersonal relationshipQualitative researchDependency (UML)Interpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychologyQualitative analysisPsychotherapistSociologyPsychoanalytic theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and contextualize the object relations of bulimic women. Two independent studies, one quantitative and one qualitative, were conducted. In the quantitative study, 77 undergraduate women completed self-report measures of eating behavior, interpersonal dependency, and object relations. In the qualitative study, four bulimic women participated in semi-structured interviews that were coded for relational themes and contextualized through a feminist socio-cultural analysis. Results supported the strong association between dependency and eating disorders and demonstrated that the object relationships of the participants were characterized by both insecure attachment and egocentricity. Socio-cultural analysis suggests that the development of these object relations can be partially accounted for by conflicting cultural expectations for women.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207