The relation between two barriers to <scp>self‐compassion</scp> and clinical characteristics in individuals with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing support for the role of self-compassion in recovery from an eating disorder (ED) and two types of barriers have been identified in this population: (a) fears that self-compassion will result in a failure to meet personal and interpersonal standards (meeting standards); and (b) fears that self-compassion gives rise to difficult emotions such as grief and unworthiness (emotional vulnerability). OBJECTIVE: This research examined the relative contribution of meeting standards and emotional vulnerability barriers to the clinical characteristics of individuals with EDs. METHOD: Participants (N = 349) completed the fears of compassion for self-scale, and measures of self-compassion, ED and psychiatric symptom severity, interpersonal and affective functioning, quality of life and readiness for ED change. RESULTS: Together, the two barrier types accounted for significant variance in all study variables. Meeting standards was associated with lower readiness to change and greater over-control. In contrast, emotional vulnerability was associated with lower self-compassion, readiness, and quality of life, poorer interpersonal and affective functioning, and greater ED and psychiatric severity. CONCLUSION: While both barriers to self-compassion were related to functioning in individuals with EDs, the emotional vulnerability barrier accounted for more variance in pathology and may be most beneficial to target in treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".