MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039084972 · doi:10.1177/1073191103255001

Psychometric Properties of the Eating Disorders Inventory-2 among Women Seeking Treatment for Binge Eating Disorder

2003· article· en· W2039084972 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinge-eating disorderBulimia nervosaPsychologyEating disordersEating Disorder InventoryBinge eatingClinical psychologyConfirmatory factor analysisPsychometricsPsychiatryStructural equation modelingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychometric properties of the Eating Disorders Inventory-2 (EDI-2) when used for women with Binge Eating Disorder (BED) are assessed. The EDI-2 was administered to 144 outpatients seeking treatment for BED and 152 outpatients seeking treatment for Bulimia Nervosa (BN). Most EDI-2 scales had acceptable internal consistence for both the BED and BN samples. EDI-2 scales demonstrated adequate stability within a subsample of those with BED who were retested. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed a hypothesized second-order two-factor structure for the original EDI scales for the BED group but not for those with BN. When the provisional EDI-2 scales were included, a two-factor structure was not supported for any group. Some scales differentiated the BED from the BN sample, and the second-order factors correlated with measures of similar constructs. The original EDI scales can be used reliably for those with BED.

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.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.289 · 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