MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135839670 · doi:10.1002/eat.20190

The relation among perfectionism, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder in individuals with eating disorders

2005· article· en· W2135839670 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerfectionism (psychology)PsychologyAnorexia nervosaBulimia nervosaClinical psychologyEating disordersPersonalityEndophenotypeObsessive compulsiveAnxiety disorderPsychiatryAnxietyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Perfectionism and obsessionality are core features of eating disorders (ED), yet the nature of their relation remains unknown. Understanding the relation between these traits may enhance our ability to identify relevant behavioral endophenotypes for ED. METHOD: Six-hundred seven individuals with anorexia and bulimia nervosa from the International Price Foundation Genetic Study were assessed for perfectionism, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). RESULTS: No differences were found across ED subtypes in the prevalence of OCPD and OCD, nor with the association between OCD and OCPD. Perfectionism scores were highest in individuals with OCPD whether alone or in combination with OCD. CONCLUSION: Perfectionism appears to be more closely associated with obsessive-compulsive personality symptoms rather than OCD. The pairing of perfectionism with OCPD may be a relevant core behavioral feature underlying vulnerability to ED.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.282 · 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