Self-reported Precipitating Factors for the Development of Eating Disorders in Young Adulthood: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: This study aimed to identify the perceived precipitating factors for seeking eating disorder treatment in the Millennial population. The purpose of this study was to understand the Millennial population, and determine if self-reported causes of eating concerns are different for this age demographic than that of the general population. Method: An exploratory analysis of the charts of one hundred individuals, mainly women, who sought eating disorder treatment at an outpatient eating disorder treatment center, for the period of 2014-2018, was completed. Respondents met the age criteria and were 18-36 years old. Results: The majority of individuals reported beginning dieting behaviors or restricting their food intake as the main cause of their eating disorder (44%). Discussion: Millennial individuals are comparative to the general public when self-reporting precipitating events that lead to the development of an eating disorder. Risk factors inherent to eating disorders, such as early dieting, body dissatisfaction, anxiety, and depression remain the same for this population.
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 | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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".