Evaluating the associations between personality psychopathology and heterogeneous eating disorder behaviors: A dimensional approach.
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
(PID-5), was used to assess the pathological personality trait facets. Items from two validated eating pathology scales were used to measure ED behaviors. Two structural equation models-an exploratory model and a theoretical model-were tested for each ED behavior. The exploratory model allowed all PID-5 personality facets to predict the ED behaviors. The theoretical models estimated paths from specific PID-5 facets to the ED behaviors. The theoretical model was an attempt to corroborate previous literature where distinct personality profiles have distinguished individuals with different EDs. The theoretical model was considered the most parsimonious model for all three ED behaviors, and each theoretical model revealed a pattern of significant associations with personality trait facets-restriction was significantly associated with higher rigid perfectionism, and binge eating was significantly associated with higher impulsivity and anxiousness. Only the significant associations with binge eating remained statistically significant when men and women were examined separately. When a dimensional model is applied, significant relationships emerge between heterogeneous ED behaviors and PID-5 trait facets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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