Eating disorder prevention initiatives for athletes: A review
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
A substantial amount of evidence suggests that collegiate and elite athletes involved in weight-sensitive sports are at greater risk of developing eating disorders (EDs) than the general population. With the limited effectiveness of treatment for EDs, prevention of EDs has been broadly considered in the literature. The present paper reviewed the existing literature on ED prevention programmes for athletes in order to determine the current status of prevention programmes and recommend future directions. The available literature suggests that selective, primary interventions with multiple targets and an interactive multimodal approach appear most effective. Current challenges in the field, including lack of longitudinal research, hesitation by the sport community to be involved in ED research and poor cross-field communication and collaboration, are also explored. The lack of dissemination of evidence-based prevention programmes and the simultaneous promotion of prevention programmes that have not yet been empirically examined are also discussed. Based on these observations future directions are recommended.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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