Perceived vulnerabilities of female athletes to the development of disordered eating behaviours
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
Abstract Disordered eating in athletes is an issue of concern given its prevalence and links with negative health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine female athletes’ perceived vulnerabilities to the development of disordered eating. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 17 female, competitive athletes from a variety of sports who self‐reported disordered eating behaviours. The results confirm previous research that sport's emphasis on the body and appearance is a factor of vulnerability. Personal qualities of perfectionism, achievement‐motivation, self‐absorption, competitiveness and self‐control, were also described as vulnerabilities to disordered eating behaviours. The participants’ abilities to tolerate pain and to enjoy hunger pains also reportedly increased their vulnerability to disordered eating. It is suggested that the qualities valued by competitive sport may also be potential factors of vulnerability to disordered eating. The findings are discussed in terms of recommendations for future research and practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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