Perspectives of Canadian fitness professionals on exercise and possible anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many individuals with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), engage in overexercise. Little is known about fitness professionals' perceptions of their responsibilities when interacting with clients with possible AN. The purpose of the current study was to examine Alberta fitness professionals' experiences with clients suspected of having AN, and their views on related ethical issues. Specifically, we aimed to examine (1) their experiences with fitness clients suspected of having AN; (2) their opinions about related ethical responsibilities of fitness professionals; and (3) their views on related training and ethical issues. METHODS: We administered a 21-item online survey to 143 Canadian fitness professionals about their experiences and perspectives on encountering individuals with possible AN in exercise classes and at their exercise facilities. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of respondents had encountered a client they believed had AN. Three-quarters had never received any training on managing clients with AN and felt inadequately prepared for such situations. Although most felt ethically obliged to intervene with such a client, more than two-thirds reported no relevant guidelines in their professional training. CONCLUSIONS: Many fitness professionals are faced with clients with possible AN, have the desire to help, feel ethically obligated to take action, but do not know what course of action to take, if any. Work is needed to clarify ethical issues and related training needs for certification programs for fitness professionals regarding AN.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".