The current status of cognitive behavioral therapy for eating disorders: Marking the 51st Annual Convention of the Association of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Virtual Issue of the International Journal of Eating Disorders (IJED) marks the 51st Annual Convention of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT), held in San Diego in November 2017.It consists of a set of recent papers published in IJED, providing key evidence about the current status of cognitive behavior therapy for eating disorders (CBT-ED)We hope that such access will support ABCT members in putting the San Diego meeting material into context.We also hope that being brought up to date via both the conference and the Virtual Issue will encourage you to develop your own thoughts and experiences into research of your own, and that you will submit your research to IJED to add to that evidence base.Nobody can pretend that CBT-ED is perfect, despite its strong standing in the field.We need a multitude of perspectives, new ideas, and a willingness to grow the field, and we know that ABCT is a perfect organization for advancing our evidence base for CBT-ED.wileyonlinelibrary.
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 | 0.034 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.011 |
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".