Reformulating and testing the perfectionism model of binge eating among undergraduate women: A short-term, three-wave longitudinal study.
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
The perfectionism model of binge eating (PMOBE) is an integrative model explaining why perfectionism is related to binge eating. This study reformulates and tests the PMOBE, with a focus on addressing limitations observed in the perfectionism and binge-eating literature. In the reformulated PMOBE, concern over mistakes is seen as a destructive aspect of perfectionism contributing to a cycle of binge eating via 4 binge-eating maintenance variables: interpersonal discrepancies, low interpersonal esteem, depressive affect, and dietary restraint. This test of the reformulated PMOBE involved 200 undergraduate women studied using a 3-wave longitudinal design. As hypothesized, concern over mistakes appears to represent a vulnerability factor for binge eating. Bootstrapped tests of mediation suggested concern over mistakes contributes to binge eating through binge-eating maintenance variables, and results supported the incremental validity of the reformulated PMOBE beyond perfectionistic strivings and neuroticism. The reformulated PMOBE also predicted binge eating, but not binge drinking, supporting the specificity of this model. The reformulated PMOBE offers a framework for understanding how key contributors to binge eating work together to generate and to maintain binge eating.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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