Understanding “feeling fat” and its underlying mechanisms: The importance of multimethod measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Feeling fat," the somatic sensation of being overweight that does not entirely correlate with one's actual weight, is recognized clinically as a maintenance factor in eating disorders. Occurring amidst Western internalized thin ideals and weight stigma, "feeling fat" is wide-reaching and also reported by those with subclinical and absent eating pathology. However, empirical study of "feeling fat" is limited. Regarding proposed mechanisms, "feeling fat" may (a) reflect the displacement of negative affect onto the body, (b) represent one element of a cognitive distortion related to the imagined consumption of fattening food, and/or (c) be a function of impaired interoceptive awareness. However, the relative and/or joint contributions of these mechanisms to "feeling fat" are unclear. Regarding measurement, retrospective assessment with single items has been the norm. Innovative measures of "feeling fat" will expand our understanding of this construct. Ecological momentary assessment can clarify the transitory nature of this experience, and physiological measures can allow for assessment of somatic elements of "feeling fat. Multi-method and implicit measurement strategies of 'feeling fat'" may clarify the mechanisms underlying this experience. Further research with improved measurement techniques may also benefit eating disorder treatment by highlighting new treatment foci (e.g., cognitive distortions, interoceptive awareness).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".