An examination of the role of autonomous versus controlled motivation in predicting inpatient treatment outcome for anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We explored the effect of autonomous and controlled motivation on outcomes for patients undergoing inpatient treatment for Anorexia Nervosa (AN). METHOD: Data on 80 patients with AN were available for the start of treatment, and for 49 at end of treatment. Patients completed measures of autonomous and controlled motivation, eating disorder symptoms and attitudes, and comorbid psychopathology at the start and end of treatment. RESULTS: Patients showed significant improvements on eating symptoms and comorbid psychopathology over the course of treatment. Autonomous motivation was a significant predictor of change in severity of eating symptoms and attitudes such that patients with higher pre-treatment levels of autonomous motivation showed larger post-treatment reductions on these indices. No such effects were associated with controlled motivation. DISCUSSION: This study highlights a relationship between autonomous motivation and outcome in an inpatient setting. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2016; 49:626-629).
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".