Stigma towards Eating Disorders among Attendees and Non-Attendees of Outreach Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating disorders are among the most stigmatized psychological disorders. Individuals with eating disorders are often blamed for their disorder. Stigma acts as a significant barrier to treatment. Health promotion outreach programs can successfully change knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with disordered eating. The current study examined eating disorder stigma scores among attendees of Disordered Eating Awareness and Prevention week events at a public US university and compared their stigma scores to college students who did not attend the events. The study recruited 332 participants (n = 159 attendees, n = 173 non-attendees). Attendees completed a paper-and-pencil survey after each event and non-attendees participated in an online survey. The study found that participants who attended disordered eating outreach events reported lower stigma scores than those who did not attend. Furthermore, female gender and having a family member with an eating disorder was associated with lower stigma scores; however, having an eating disorder was not. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating stigma assessment in outreach programs and reducing stigma associated with eating disorders.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".