MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040128890 · doi:10.1080/10640260701323458

Eating Disorders and Substance Abuse in Canadian Men and Women: A National Study

2007· article· en· W2040128890 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tahany M. Gadalla, Niva Piran

Bibliographic record

VenueEating Disorders · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCIDISubstance abusePsychiatryMental healthEating disordersClinical psychologyPsychologySubstance useInterviewMedicineEnvironmental healthNational Comorbidity Survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to examine the co-morbidity between eating disorders and substance use in a large nationally representative sample of Canadian women and men while including varied measures of substance consumption and a wide range of substance classes. The research was based on secondary analyses of data collected, using multistage stratified probability sampling, by Statistics Canada in the Mental Health and Well-being cycle 1.2 of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). Data were collected mostly in face to face interviews using the Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing method. Data included the Eating Attitude Test (EAT-26), and modules of the short form of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-SF) to assess alcohol and drug use, dependence and interference. Alcohol interference and amphetamine use were associated with the risk for an eating disorder in both women and men. In the women sample only, risk for an eating disorder was associated with illicit drug use, dependence and interference, as well as with the number of substance classes used. The study findings support the importance of developing assessment instruments and treatment strategies that address the co-occurrence of eating disorders and substance use for both women and men.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207