Weight‐related and shape‐related self‐evaluation in eating‐disordered and non–eating‐disordered women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Weight- and shape-related self-evaluation refers to the process whereby an individual determines her self-worth based on an evaluation of her body weight and shape. This is a hallmark feature of both anorexia and bulimia nervosa, as specified in the 4th ed. of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The purpose of this study was to further our understanding of weight-related self-evaluation in eating-disordered women. METHOD: Eating-disordered patients, restrained eaters, and unrestrained eaters completed an experimenter-designed questionnaire that examines different dimensions of weight-related self-evaluation (i.e., the Multidimensional Weight-Related Self-Evaluation Inventory). RESULTS: Results revealed that weight-related self-evaluation is a feature shared, to some extent, by both eating-disordered patients and restrained eaters. However, eating-disordered patients extend weight-related self-evaluation to include more domains of self-esteem than did restrained eaters. DISCUSSION: These findings support a multidimensional approach to weight-related self-evaluation and further our understanding of the process of weight-related self-evaluation in eating-disordered patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".