MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147069622 · doi:10.1177/147470490800600112

Anorexic Behavior, Female Competition and Stress: Developing the Female Competition Stress Test

2008· article· en· W2147069622 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Salmon, Charles Crawford, Sally Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsCapilano UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCompetition (biology)Stress (linguistics)AnxietyDevelopmental psychologyTest (biology)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The FCST (Female-Female Competition Stress Test) was constructed to assess stress from adolescent female-female competition. Such stress is particularly relevant to the Reproductive Suppression Hypothesis that has been suggested as one possible explanation for the development of anorexic type behavior in young women. A series of items generated an initial test in the first phase of development. In the second phase, three studies were conducted to assess reliability and validity. Female undergraduates retrospectively rated the female-female competition stress they had experienced as adolescents, and their responses were factor-analyzed. In a second group of subjects, FCST scores were correlated with a measure of anxiety. In the third study, three samples provided prototypicality ratings of the test items to determine both the agreement among raters and which items were not sufficiently prototypical of female-female competition stress to be retained. In the final phase, the responses of adolescent girls to the FCST and several measures of body image were factor analyzed, showing the utility of the FCST.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionary PsychologySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207