MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006173568 · doi:10.1002/erv.656

‘An engagement-distancing flux’: bringing a voice to experiences with romantic relationships for women with anorexia nervosa

2005· article· en· W2006173568 on OpenAlexaff
Mandi Newton, Sheryl Boblin, Barbara Brown, Donna Ciliska

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Eating Disorders Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDistancingAnorexia nervosaSituational ethicsEating disordersContext (archaeology)Interpretative phenomenological analysisRomancePsychological interventionPerspective (graphical)Developmental psychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychologyClinical psychologyQualitative researchPsychiatryMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Psychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 20 years, clinicians and researchers have been exploring the dynamic interplay between eating disorders and relational experiences. This phenomenological study sought to describe the subjective experiences of romantic relationships for women with anorexia nervosa (AN). A purposive sample of 11 women participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Analysis revealed that these women engaged in diverse relational experiences characterized by dialectical themes of engagement and distancing, which acted as basic drivers of relational change and maintenance. The dialectical perspective illustrated that the women's relational experiences did not contradict a generalized theory of relationships. Rather, the participants often addressed behavioural patterns, motivational dynamics and situational environments in the context of their eating disorder. Understanding how women with AN experience romantic relationships may assist health care professionals to tailor interventions specific to patient ways of relating. Copyright © 2005 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Eating Disorders ReviewSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207