“I Can Relate”: Practice and Ethical Considerations for Eating Disorder Therapists with a History of an Eating Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a substantial subgroup of practising psychotherapeutic professionals in the treatment of eating disorders who have a history of an eating disorder themselves. These professionals encounter unique situations in their practice inherent to their experiential knowledge. Unfortunately, the stigma surrounding experiential knowledge and eating disorders, along with discrepancies about eating disorder recovery and the course of the disorder, creates challenges for therapists with a history of an eating disorder. The psychotherapeutic profession raises complex practice and ethical issues when therapists with a history of an eating disorder treat clients with an eating disorder. Therapists with a history of an eating disorder should consider a critical evaluation of the professional and ethical aspects they encounter within their work to ensure sound practice for both clients and themselves.
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 | 0.122 | 0.229 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".