Disordered Eating in Women's Gymnastics: Perspectives of Athletes, Coaches, Parents, and Judges
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
This study examined the knowledge base and perspectives of current and retired gymnasts, parents, coaches and judges with respect to disordered eating in gymnasts. Surveys were designed for this study and included open-ended questions, Likert scales, and checklists. The results indicated that various discrepancies existed between the groups' reports. For example, the retired gymnasts reported more eating disorders and negative views of their experiences than did the current gymnasts. The coaches attributed the use of unhealthy weight control practices to other coaches but not to themselves. Gymnasts who received disparaging comments about their bodies or instructions to lose weight had significantly more disordered eating patterns than those who had not received such comments. The importance of one's social environment on eating and weight control practices is emphasized. Every group recommended further education about nutrition, adolescent development, body image, and psychological well-being. Limitations and future recommendations are addressed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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