MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235928377 · doi:10.1080/10640266.2015.1133210

The influence of carer fear and self-blame when supporting a loved one with an eating disorder

2016· article· en· W2235928377 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Stillar, Erin J. Strahan, Patricia Nash, Natasha Files, Jennifer Scarborough, Shari Mayman, Katherine A. Henderson, Joanne Gusella, Laura Connors, Emily Orr, Patricia Marchand, Joanne Dolhanty, Adèle Lafrance Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueEating Disorders · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu HospitalCape Breton Regional HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreHealth Sciences NorthDalhousie UniversityCanadian Psychological AssociationWilfrid Laurier UniversityCanadian Mental Health AssociationLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlamePsychologyContext (archaeology)Relevance (law)Clinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carers often feel disempowered and engage in behaviours that inadvertently enable their loved one's ED symptoms and yet little is known regarding these processes. This study examined the relationships among fear, self-blame, self-efficacy, and accommodating and enabling behaviours in 137 carers of adolescents and adults with ED. The results revealed that fear and self-blame predicted low carer self-efficacy in supporting their loved one's recovery as well as the extent to which carers reported engaging in recovery-interfering behaviours. The relevance of these findings are discussed in the context of family-oriented ED therapies and highlight the importance for clinicians to attend to and help to process strong emotions in carers, in order to improve their supportive efforts and, ultimately, ED outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations47
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207