Doubt and fear of self in bulimia nervosa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several overlapping cognitive processes have been identified in eating disorders (EDs) and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Drawing from the OCD literature, the present study examined whether bulimia nervosa (BN) is associated with a maladaptive inductive reasoning style characterized by the over-investment in possibility-based (as opposed to reality-based) information. METHOD: Women with BN (n = 25) and healthy controls (HC; n = 24) completed the Inference Processes Task (IPT), an ecological inductive reasoning task previously validated in OCD samples. Participants also completed the Fear of Self Questionnaire (FSQ) that evaluates investment in a feared possible identity. RESULTS: Significant differences on the IPT indicate that the BN group was more influenced by possibility-based information throughout the task than the HC group (F[5.44, 255.78] = 6.94, p > .001). It was also found that the BN group scored significantly higher on the FSQ than the HC group (t[29.98] = 8.4, p > .001), replicating previous findings. Finally, scores on the IPT were significantly correlated with measures of symptom severity. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that BN may be associated with maladaptive inductive reasoning processes characterized by over-investment in possibility-based feared outcomes and identities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it