MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088916667 · doi:10.1080/10503307.2012.717309

Matching women with binge eating disorder to group treatment based on attachment anxiety: Outcomes and moderating effects

2012· article· en· W2088916667 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of ManitobaManitoba HealthOttawa Hospital
FundersInstitute of Gender and HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyBinge-eating disorderBinge eatingAnxietyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyGroup psychotherapyEating disordersPsychiatryBulimia nervosa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We hypothesized that compared to therapy groups homogeneously composed of women with binge eating disorder (BED) and low attachment anxiety, groups with high attachment anxiety would have better outcomes and a greater alliance-outcome relationship. We assigned 102 women with BED to therapy groups homogeneously composed of low attachment anxiety (n =52) or high attachment anxiety participants (n=50) who received Group Psychodynamic Interpersonal Psychotherapy (GPIP). GPIP resulted in improved outcomes with large effects. Attachment anxiety condition did not moderate outcomes. However, attachment anxiety condition did moderate the alliance-outcome relationship: i.e., group alliance growth was associated with improved binge eating only in the high attachment anxiety condition. Clinicians should be attentive to and encourage the growth of group therapy alliance especially for anxiously attached individuals.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.371 · 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