MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150387317 · doi:10.1037/a0031123

Disordered eating behaviours in an undergraduate sample: Associations among gender, body mass index, and difficulties in emotion regulation.

2013· article· en· W2150387317 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adèle Lafrance Robinson, Stacey Kosmerly, Sarah Mansfield-Green, Glenys A. Lafrance

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBody mass indexDisordered eatingSample (material)Index (typography)Eating disordersDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of individuals to recognise and regulate their emotions is known as emotion regulation. It is well established that difficulties in emotion regulation are associated with disordered eating. The present study explored the relationships among gender, body mass index, difficulties in emotion regulation, and disordered eating behaviours in a nonclinical sample of men and women. As part of a larger study, men (n 85) and women (n 165) from undergraduate university programs provided weight and height information and completed the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and the Eating Attitudes Test. Results from regression analyses suggest that, in a nonclinical sample, gender, body mass index, and specific difficulties in emotion regulation are related to disordered eating attitudes and behaviours. With respect to dieting, some of these relationships are more complex and involve interactions between BMI and both gender and impulse control.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations60
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207