Seeing Beyond the Eating Disorder: The Complexities of Eating Disorder Care in New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health professionals struggle in caring for individuals with eating disorders, especially in New Brunswick, Canada where there is no recognized eating disorder treatment center.Using a narrative approach, this study explored the perceptions and experiences of professionals from seven regulated health professions that are most commonly involved in eating disorder care -medicine, dentistry, nursing, social work, occupational therapy, dietetics, and psychology.The findings bring to light the complexities of eating disorder care and the process that professionals go through in seeing beyond the eating disorder to understanding the often subtle subtexts that impede eating disorder identification and treatment.Looking at eating disorder care from an interprofessional perspective provides unique insight into the common needs and challenges of practitioners and may ultimately inform treatment and prevention initiatives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".