MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171469768 · doi:10.1002/eat.20169

Impulsivity and compulsivity in bulimia nervosa

2005· article· en· W2171469768 on OpenAlexaff
Scott G. Engel, Stephanie J. Corneliussen, Stephen A. Wonderlich, Ross D. Crosby, Daniel Le Grange, Scott J. Crow, Marjorie H. Klein, Anna M. Bardone‐Cone, Carol B. Peterson, Thomas E. Joiner, James E. Mitchell, Howard Steiger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpulsivityPsychologyBulimia nervosaPersonalityCompulsive behaviorClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychiatryComorbidityEating disorders

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A primary objective of the current article is to investigate the relationship between impulsivity and compulsivity in patients with bulimia nervosa (BN). A second goal is to explore the relationship between impulsivity and compulsivity and related psychiatric problems. METHOD: Two-hundred four females with BN completed several measures of impulsivity and compulsivity as well as measures of personality, substance use, eating pathology, and depression. RESULTS: Participants reported considerable variability on measures of impulsivity and compulsivity and these scores were positively correlated with each other. Impulsive-compulsive groups differed in personality, substance use, eating, and depression. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that impulsivity and compulsivity can coexist in BN patients and that both traits may provide useful information about comorbid problems in women with BN.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations94
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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