Women with and without Eating Disorders: Their Values and Eating Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women with eating disorders and women without an eating disorder who either scored in the upper (HiEAT) or lower tertile (LoEAT) on the Eating Attitudes Test (EAT; Garner & Garfinkel, 1979) completed the Schwartz Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992) and a scenario in which they decided whether, in the company of friends and after they had just finished a filling meal, they would order their favorite des-sert. The results indicate that four sets of values (values associated with hedonism, stimulation, tradition, and conformity) are related to women's eating attitudes and intended behavior. HiEAT women gave significantly greater endorsements than women with eating disorders to values associated with hedonism and stimulation, whereas women with eating disorders gave significantly greater endorsements than LoEAT women to values associated with conformity and tradition. Further-more, the women's eating attitudes moderated their decisions about whether they would order dessert. A greater number of HiEAT women decided not to order dessert and a greater number of LoEAT women decided to order dessert, but only after their values had been primed by first completing the value survey. Moreover, differences in the women's endorsements of the values associated with stimulation disappeared when they completed the scenario before completing the value survey. The results contrast the valued outcomes (success, popularity, etc.) projected by the North American media image of the very thin woman and the valued behaviors (control and constraint) associated with asceticism.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".