The family and anorexia nervosa: examining parent–child boundary problems†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To examine parent–child boundary dissolution in anorexia nervosa using a measure that treats boundary phenomena as multidimensional and distinct from highly cohesive relationships. Method 30 women with anorexia were recruited from an eating disorders programme and compared with 65 control women on reports of intergenerational boundary problems using the Parent‐Child Boundaries Scale. This measure conceptualizes boundaries as multidimensional and can address both mother–daughter and father–daughter relations. Family cohesion was also measured using the FACES III. A subset of parents completed these measures. Results Women with anorexia reported more boundary problems with mothers and fathers than did control women, both in terms of global and some specific violations. However, parents of anorexic women did not endorse more boundary problems with their daughters. Discussion Daughters' views suggest that boundary violations are problematic in anorexia. Results suggest that boundary problems can be treated as multidimensional and should be viewed as distinct from high levels of familial cohesion. These results also suggest that it is important to ascertain individual family members' viewpoints on family dynamics. 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".