Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dieting (restricting) and purging forms of anorexia nervosa The diagnostic criteria that have been prescribed for AN and the other eating disorders have varied only slightly over the years, and the present form (see Tables 1.3–1.6) is essentially similar to when the disorders were first described. It is important to stress that these descriptions are simply lists of symptoms and signs that are commonly associated and that point to a similarity of course of others. They are not true definitions of an illness entity as is found in many instances elsewhere in medicine, i.e. an explanatory portrayal of etiological factors, pathology and physiopathology, derived manifestations, and a course of progression. Instead, they merely note physical, psychological, and behavioral features without a clear appreciation of their interrelationship. The most characteristic of the features of an eating disorder are the behavioral disturbances that the patient displays; it is these features that will be described here. Anorexic behaviors, although all directed at either decreasing energy intake or increasing energy expenditure, are not uniform (Table 2.1). Some patients employ only the restrictive behaviors commonly associated with “normal” dieting, such as undereating, refusal of high-energy foods, and strenuous exercise. This is the “dieting” or “restricting” form of the illness; these patients differ from normal mainly in the extent of these behaviors and their inability to desist. Other patients also use vomiting and laxative or diuretic abuse. The presentation, then, is of the “purging” form of 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.010 |
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".