MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211170081 · doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0807

Eating Disorders

2003· other· en· W4211170081 on OpenAlexaff
Howard Steiger, Kenneth R. Bruce, Mimi Israël

Bibliographic record

VenueHandbook of Psychology · 2003
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEating disordersBulimia nervosaBinge eatingPsychologyBinge-eating disorderPsychopathologyMoodPsychiatryAnorexia nervosaContext (archaeology)AnorexiaClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a social context that equates thinness with many social values, it is not surprising to find that most people display body‐image and diet self‐consciousness, and that an alarming number of these persons (especially young women) progress to the development of an eating disorder. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are the two primary variants of eating disorder recognized within authoritative diagnostic nomenclatures. However, binge eating disorder is likely to become a third, officially recognized variant of eating disorder in future editions of diagnostic manuals. Anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating are polysymptomatic syndromes defined by maladaptive attitudes and behaviors around eating, weight and body image, and more nonspecific disturbances of self‐image, mood, impulse‐regulation, and interpersonal functioning. Reviewed in this chapter are pathognomonic features of the eating disorders, findings on concurrent traits and comorbid psychopathology, and putative biological, psychological, and social factors that may explain their etiology and development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1620.060

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHandbook of PsychologySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207