What my body looks like and what my body can do: A self-perception explanation of excessive exercise in young adults with anorexia and/or bulimia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the relationships between quantitative and qualitative dimensions of excessive exercise (EE) with the physical self-perception’s dimensions and perceptual perspectives of body image (i.e., allocentric/3rd person and egocentric/1st person perspectives). The eLoriCorps Immersive Body Rating Scale 1.1, the very short form version of the Physical Self-Inventory and the Exercise and Eating Disorder test were used. The study includes 36 people with anorexia and/or bulimia seeking an external and specialized transdisciplinary program for eating disorders. Results show a different correlational profile of physical self-perceptions depending on the dimension (qualitative or quantitative) used to define EE. Differences in the perspectives used to assess body dissatisfaction (allocentric or egocentric) were also found. Perceived physical appearance was the key predictor of the qualitative dimension of excessive exercise. Findings suggest that EE in patients with an eating disorder could be explained by the feeling of competence not only related to physical appearance but also to physical abilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".