"You're a whole lot of person"--Understanding the journey through anorexia to recovery: A qualitative study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the grounded theory method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), this study examined the subjective experience of anorexia nervosa in interviews with 5 women who have experienced symptoms of the disorder. Under the category Relational Anorexia, 2 themes emerged. The first involved the pervasiveness of anorexia among peer groups, and the second involved the continuum along which anorexia exists. The second category, Self Worth, had 3 themes. The first involved thinness as achievement and a means of establishing self worth. The second dealt with both positive and negative male influences in the development and healing of anorexia. The third is related to recovery. Taken together, these responses reveal that anorexia may be largely a relational process that involves a maladaptive desire for self-worth mediated through control of eating and weight, and that the role of the media in promoting an ideal of thinness for women may be only a background factor in the disorder.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".