MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016187085 · doi:10.1002/eat.10176

Childhood and adulthood abuse in bulimic and nonbulimic women: Prevalences and psychological correlates

2003· article· en· W2016187085 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie A. Leonard, Howard Steiger, Alina Kao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas CollegeUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathologyPsychologySexual abusePsychological abusePsychiatryClinical psychologyPersonalityChild abusePhysical abusePoison controlSubstance abuseInjury preventionSuicide preventionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated associations between childhood physical and sexual abuse in bulimic women and eating disturbances, psychiatric symptoms, and likelihood of later abuse in adulthood. METHOD: Fifty-one bulimics and 25 normal eaters participated in this study. Semistructured interviews and self-report measures were used to assess eating symptoms, comorbid psychiatric disturbances, personality pathology, and childhood and adulthood abuse. RESULTS: Compared with the normal eaters, bulimic women reported higher levels of childhood abuse. Although bulimic women showed more psychopathology than nonbulimic women, there was a correspondence between the presence and severity of abuse and the severity of concurrent psychopathologic symptoms. Results linked dissociation and submissiveness to most severe forms of abuse. Abuse in adulthood was almost always preceded by earlier abuse during childhood. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest an association between certain psychopathologic traits and the likelihood of abuse (especially when occurring both in childhood and adulthood). Observed associations could implicate causal effects of childhood abuse on personality development, influences of personality traits in heightening the risk of abuse, or both.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207