Implications of attachment theory and research for the assessment and treatment of eating disorders.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we review the research literature on attachment and eating disorders and suggest a framework for assessing and treating attachment functioning in patients with an eating disorder. Treatment outcomes for individuals with eating disorders tend to be moderate. Those with attachment-associated insecurities are likely to be the least to benefit from current symptom-focused therapies. We describe the common attachment categories (secure, avoidant, anxious), and then describe domains of attachment functioning within each category: affect regulation, interpersonal style, coherence of mind, and reflective functioning. We also note the impact of disorganized mental states related to loss or trauma. Assessing these domains of attachment functioning can guide focused interventions in the psychotherapy of eating disorders. Case examples are presented to illustrate assessment, case formulation, and group psychotherapy of eating disorders that are informed by attachment theory. Tailoring treatments to improve attachment functioning for patients with an eating disorder will likely result in better outcomes for those suffering from these particularly burdensome disorders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it