Disordered eating and sexual insecurities in young women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has long been a proposed clinical link between sexuality and eating disorders; however, little empirical evidence exists regarding this relationship. The limited body of research on sexuality in eating disorders supports the occurrence of considerable sexual concerns. The aim of the present study was to expand on the dearth of empirical literature exploring altered sexuality in relation to disordered eating. This research examines disordered eating in relation to sexual insecurities. Undergraduate female UBC students (n=789) completed a series of online questionnaires assessing sexual insecurities and eating habits. Several domains of sexual insecurities were associated with disordered eating symptom severity. Mean differences in sexual self-efficacy, as well as body- and performance-based cognitive distractions during sexual activity emerged among women categorized as being at elevated, typical, or low eating disorder risk, with those at greater risk reporting greater sexual difficulties. Sexuality is rarely considered in the context of eating disorder treatment unless a history of sexual abuse is present. The results of this study suggest that sexual insecurities should be addressed during eating disorder care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".