MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087845974 · doi:10.1002/erv.966

How does overeaters anonymous help its members? A qualitative analysis

2009· article· en· W2087845974 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Eating Disorders Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvereatingFocus groupEating disordersQualitative researchPopularityPsychologyQualitative analysisAddictionClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychologyObesityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overeaters Anonymous (OA) is a 12-step, self-help group for individuals who perceive themselves to have problems with compulsive overeating. Despite the popularity of OA and the frequent use of addictions-based treatments for eating disorders, little is known about how OA is helpful. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore members' experiences with and perceptions of OA. We conducted three focus groups with self-selected members of OA (N = 20). We present three primary themes that emerged from the analysis of the focus groups' discussions, which emphasize why individuals entered OA, OA's 'tools', and how individuals perceived OA to 'work'. Overall, although participants agreed OA was helpful to them, there was no consensus regarding how OA 'works'.

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 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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.332 · 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