Psychometric properties of the Minnesota Eating Behavior Survey in Canadian university women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Minnesota Eating Behavior Survey (MEBS) est un questionnaire compose de 30 items qui permettent de faire une evaluation longitudinale des symptomes du trouble de l'alimentation chez des enfants et des adultes de la communaute. Cette etude de contre-validation a evalue les proprietes psychometriques du MEBS chez 423 universitaires femmes au Canada. En general on a observe une fiabilite et une convergence de la coherence interne satisfaisantes et une validite discriminatoire, bien que le rendement de la sous-echelle de comportement compensateur etait relativement faible. De plus, nous avons observe une congruence acceptable avec la structure du facteur d'origine dans cet echantillon, mais l'analyse du facteur de confirmation a indique que la structure du facteur d'origine ne correspond que mediocrement a ces donnees. Un modele de rechange est presente. Nous supposons dans l'interpretation de ces resultats mitiges qu'ils appuient dans une grande mesure la fiabilite et la validite du MEBS comme une mesure breve des syndromes du trouble de l'alimentation chez les femmes au premier cycle universitaire. Il faut une evaluation plus poussee de la structure des facteurs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".