MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2302220666 · doi:10.14288/1.0165751

Understanding weight restoration in adolescent anorexia as a parent project

2015· article· en· W2302220666 on OpenAlexaff
Krista D. Socholotiuk

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnorexiaPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyAnorexia nervosaAdolescent developmentPsychotherapistSocial psychologyMedicineClinical psychologyEating disorders

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parent-led weight restoration is a key intervention of family-based treatment, an empirically-supported approach for the treatment of adolescent anorexia. Little is known about the processes by which parents implement weight restoration, and current understandings of this intervention are primarily informed by professional perspectives. The aim of this study was to increase knowledge and understanding of parent-led weight restoration by examining parents’ actions while engaged in efforts to help their adolescent recover weight. The guiding research question was, “How do parents participate in the weight restoration of their adolescent as he or she recovers from anorexia?” This multicase study (Stake, 2006) used the action project method (Young, Valach, & Domene, 2005) and conceptual framework of contextual action theory (Valach, Young & Lynam, 2002) to examine five cases of parents engaged in actions intended to help their adolescent recover weight and to alter eating disorder behaviours. Data were collected using multi-part interviews, and analyzed according to the action project method and the multicase approach. Qualitative analysis revealed parents’ treatment-related goals of adolescent weight recovery were situated in a larger system of projects and careers in the parents’ personal and family lives. Conceptualizing the parents’ actions within this system revealed personally and socially meaningful weight restoration projects, and the relational and social meaning of these projects was found to motivate and steer parents’ day-to-day weight restoration actions. Some common joint projects emerged across the cases, such as seeking support and partnership and managing burden and distress associated with tension between weight restoration and other personal and parenting projects, especially adolescent development and parent identity processes. Implications for counselling practice with parents implementing weight restoration treatments are drawn.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicEating Disorders and Behaviors→French-language works237,207→