MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978578760 · doi:10.1002/erv.443

Clinician stance in the treatment of chronic eating disorders

2001· article· en· W1978578760 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

VenueEuropean Eating Disorders Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEating disordersMotivational interviewingAnorexia nervosaPsychologyAmbivalenceAlliancePsychiatryPsychotherapistPopulationClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)MedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Long‐term outcome studies of anorexia nervosa have shown that a significant number of individuals do not fully recover from their eating disorder symptoms. Individuals who develop chronic eating disorders may express either strong ambivalence about symptom reduction or a complete lack of interest in change. As a result, clinicians can find this group particularly challenging. This report expands upon a treatment stance based on principles of Motivational Interviewing that addresses difficulties typically encountered in working with this population. The stance outlines a mission statement and specific clinician behaviours that promote engagement and alliance with this group, including the communication of beliefs that foster client self‐acceptance, not making assumptions, being curious, active, and on the same side, and maximizing client responsibility for change. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.316 · 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