Altered social cognition in a community sample of women with disordered eating behaviours: a multi-method approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior work suggests that individuals with an eating disorder demonstrate task-based and overall differences in sociocognitive functioning. However, the majority of studies assessed specifically anorexia nervosa and often employed a single experimental paradigm, providing a piecemeal understanding of the applicability of various lab tasks in denoting meaningful differences across diverse individuals. The current study was designed to address these outstanding issues. Participants were undergraduate females who self-identified as having an official (n = 18) eating disorder diagnosis or disordered eating behaviours with no diagnosis (n = 18), along with a control group (n = 32). Participants completed three social tasks of increasing complexity with different outcome measures, namely a gaze cueing task, passive video-watching using eyetracking, and a task to measure preferred social distance. Results diverged as a function of group across tasks; only the control group produced typical social attention effects, the disordered eating group looked significantly more at faces, and the eating disorder group demonstrated a significantly larger preferred social distance. These results suggest variations in task efficacy and demonstrate that altered sociocognitive functioning extends beyond official eating disorder diagnosis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".