Assessment of thought–shape fusion: Initial validation of a short version of the trait thought–shape fusion scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Thought-shape fusion (TSF) is a cognitive distortion that has been linked to eating pathology. Two studies were conducted to further explore this phenomenon and to establish the psychometric properties of a French short version of the TSF scale. METHOD: In Study 1, students (n = 284) completed questionnaires assessing TSF and related psychopathology. In Study 2, the responses of women with eating disorders (n = 22) and women with no history of an eating disorder (n = 23) were compared. RESULTS: The French short version of the TSF scale has a unifactorial structure, with convergent validity with measures of eating pathology, and good internal consistency. Depression, eating pathology, body dissatisfaction, and thought-action fusion emerged as predictors of TSF. Individuals with eating disorders have higher TSF, and more clinically relevant food-related thoughts than do women with no history of an eating disorder. DISCUSSION: This research suggests that the shortened TSF scale can suitably measure this construct, and provides support for the notion that TSF is associated with eating pathology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".