MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146640944 · doi:10.1002/eat.22031

Disordered eating following exposure to television and internet coverage of the March 2011 japan earthquake

2012· article· en· W2146640944 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel F. Rodgers, ­Debra L. Franko, Alain Brunet, Christophe F. Herbert, Éric Bui

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDietingDisordered eatingDistressingPsychologyDemographyClinical psychologyEating disordersPsychiatryMedicineWeight lossObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively explore the relationship between exposure to potentially distressing news content and disordered eating. METHOD: Within 2 weeks of the March 3, 2011 Japan earthquake, an online survey was conducted among non-Japanese adults in distant countries (N = 698) assessing time spent on TV and the internet watching the news as well as peritraumatic reactions to the news and sleep disturbance. Participants were invited to complete a followup survey two months later [n = 113, mean age (SD) = 38.8 (11.91), 73% female] reporting on eating disorder symptoms. RESULTS: Exposure to TV and, to a lesser extent, internet coverage of the Japan disaster were associated with disordered eating, in particular dieting and oral control, as measured by the eating attitudes test. Peritraumatic reactions and sleep disturbance displayed specific patterns of association with disordered eating. DISCUSSION: Exposure to media coverage of distant disasters may be associated with increased disordered eating.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207