Is all nonhomeostatic eating the same? Examining the latent structure of nonhomeostatic eating processes in women and men.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonhomeostatic eating is a complex (presumably) multidimensional construct associated with negative health outcomes. However, little research has examined the latent structure of nonhomeostatic eating processes, interrelationships among nonhomeostatic eating constructs, and differential associations between nonhomeostatic eating constructs and external correlates. This study adopted a construct validation approach to investigate these research questions in a large sample of undergraduate women and men (N = 998; 54.6% female). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on items from 8 measures representing numerous nonhomeostatic eating process constructs (e.g., binge eating, loss of control [LOC] over eating, "food addiction"). The 7-factor retained solution included the following: (1) emotional eating, (2) external eating, (3) LOC over eating, (4) overeating, (5) distress over nonhomeostatic eating, (6) hedonic hunger, and (7) food addiction. LOC over eating was the nonhomeostatic eating factor most strongly related to other factors (M rs = .71 and .65 in women and men, respectively). Factor score multiple regressions conducted separately by sex indicated that distress over nonhomeostatic eating was related to body mass index, depressive symptoms, and eating-related clinical impairment in both women and men. In women, food addiction demonstrated unique associations with depressive symptoms, emotion dysregulation, and clinical impairment, whereas overeating uniquely predicted these outcomes in men. This is the first comprehensive analysis of the latent structure of nonhomeostatic eating processes and associations with external correlates, and results suggest that LOC over eating, distress over nonhomeostatic eating, food addiction (in women), and overeating (in men) exhibited the strongest relations with psychosocial impairment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".