An experimental investigation of recruitment bias in eating pathology research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Previous, uncontrolled research has suggested a bias may exist in recruiting participants for eating disorder research. Recruitment biases may affect sample representativeness and generalizability of findings. OBJECTIVE: This experiment investigated whether revealing that a study's topic was related to eating disorders created a self-selection bias. METHOD: Young women at a university responded to advertisements containing contrasting information about the nature of a single study. We recruited one group by advertising the study under the title "Disordered Eating in Young Women" (n = 251) and another group using the title "Consumer Preferences" (n = 259). RESULTS: Results indicated similar levels of eating pathology in both groups, so the different recruitment techniques did not engender self-selection. However, the consumer preferences group scored higher in self-reported social desirability. CONCLUSION: The level of information conveyed in study advertising does not impact reporting of eating disturbances among nonclinical samples, although there is evidence social desirability might.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".