Explaining reinforcement and erroneous beliefs in pathological exercise: A commentary and expansion on Coniglio et al. (in press) using the pathways model of disordered gambling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coniglio, Cooper, and Selby proposed that behavioral reinforcement may be critical for understanding the etiology and maintenance of pathological exercise among people living with anorexia nervosa. They presented three competing hypotheses about why exercise can become problematic: (a) positive reinforcement via biological and behavioral rewards, (b) negative reinforcement via avoidance of aversive states, or (c) a synergistic interplay between positive and negative reinforcement. Herein, we extend Coniglio and colleagues' framework by drawing on theory and research from the field of disordered gambling-a behavior in which reinforcement is an etiological and maintaining mechanism. We applied the pathways model of disordered gambling to the study of pathological exercise and made the following two proposals. First, pathological exercise may be driven by positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, or both (they are not mutually exclusive), depending on the presence or absence of specific co-occurring psychopathologies. Second, erroneous beliefs about the safety and efficacy of maladaptive exercise for weight control may help maintain pathological exercise regardless of the type of reinforcement. We conclude by calling for research that assesses Coniglio and colleagues' novel hypotheses and our supposition that the pathways model can help provide a framework for those hypotheses.
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".