MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083635528 · doi:10.1080/01674820500451517

Treating vulnerable populations: The case of eating disorders during pregnancy

2006· article· en· W2083635528 on OpenAlexaff
Mandi Newton, Lesa L.K. Chizawsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEating disordersPregnancyIntervention (counseling)PsychiatryPopulationMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While eating disorders are a prevalent psychiatric issue for women, only a moderate amount of literature discussing the implications for pregnancy exists and even less explores how to identify and manage eating disorders in this patient population. This is despite known risks for adverse fetal, birth, and maternal outcomes because of these disorders. To enhance standard assessment practice and facilitate early intervention for the eating disordered patient, a general obstetrics role need not dramatically change to improve outcomes for mother and child.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations27
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207