Eating alone, parents’ marital status, and use of radio and girls’ magazines were risk factors for eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martínez-González MA, Gual P, Lahortiga F, et al. Parental factors, mass media influences, and the onset of eating disorders in a prospective population-based cohort. Pediatrics2003 ; 111 : 315 –20 [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: Are parental, mass media, sociodemographic, and psychosocial variables associated with an increased risk of developing an eating disorder (ED) in girls? Community cohort study with 18 months of follow up. Navarra, Spain. 2862 girls who were 12–21 years of age {mean age 15.5 y}* and did not have an ED according to DSM-IV criteria. Parental characteristics, mass media exposures, and other sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics were assessed by self completed questionnaires. A validated, 36 item scale was used to assess 4 components of self esteem: social, emotional, familial, and academic. Main outcome was … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.stitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.aulast%253DMartinez-Gonzalez%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D111%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D315%26rft.epage%253D320%26rft.atitle%253DParental%2BFactors%252C%2BMass%2BMedia%2BInfluences%252C%2Band%2Bthe%2BOnset%2Bof%2BEating%2BDisorders%2Bin%2Ba%2BProspective%2BPopulation-Based%2BCohort%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.111.2.315%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12563057%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=pediatrics&resid=111/2/315&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F4%2F120.atom
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".