MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146069214 · doi:10.1002/erv.1147

Validation of the Social Appearance Anxiety Scale in Female Eating Disorder Patients

2011· article· en· W2146069214 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Claes, Trevor Hart, Dirk Smits, Frédérique Van den Eynde, Astrid Mueller, James E. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Eating Disorders Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyEating disordersPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychopathologyEating Disorder InventoryPersonalitySocial anxietyPsychiatryBulimia nervosa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, we investigated the psychometric properties of the Social Appearance Anxiety Scale (SAAS) in a sample of 60 female eating disorder patients (M(age) = 27.82, SD = 9.76). The SAAS was developed to assess anxiety about being negatively evaluated for one's appearance. All patients completed the SAAS, the Eating Disorder Inventory-2, the Physical Health Questionnaire-9 Depression and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Psychopathology. The SAAS demonstrated a one-factor structure and a high internal consistency. The SAAS was significantly positive in relation to body mass index, drive for thinness and body dissatisfaction. Concerning personality dimensions, the SAAS was positively related to emotional problems (e.g. depression, anxiety) and interpersonal problems (e.g. suspiciousness, submissiveness). Findings suggest that the SAAS is a psychometrically sound instrument to assess anxiety about being negatively evaluated about one's appearance in a sample of eating disorder patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Eating Disorders ReviewSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207