Autonomous Motivation: A Predictor of Treatment Outcome in Bulimia‐Spectrum Eating Disorders
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
UNLABELLED: Individuals with eating disorders are said to be highly ambivalent towards change and thus have difficulty maintaining a commitment to, and motivation for, treatment. Self-Determination Theory postulates that autonomous motivation for therapy exists when individuals view their participation as freely chosen. OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to ascertain whether or not autonomous motivation was associated with treatment response in individuals with bulimia-spectrum eating disorders (BSED). METHOD: One hundred and fifty-five women with DSM-IV-TR BSED participated in multimodal group therapy and completed measures to assess motivation, eating and comorbid symptoms. RESULTS: Hierarchical multiple regression analyses demonstrated that higher levels of autonomous motivation at pretreatment predicted lower post-treatment scores on measures of eating preoccupations (shape, weight and eating concerns), binge eating, anxiety/depression, relationship to self and others and impulsivity. DISCUSSION: These results indicate that autonomous motivation may be an important predictor of outcome following treatment for BSED.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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