MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312115153 · doi:10.1186/s40337-022-00721-8

Eat, pray, love: disordered eating in religious and non-religious men and women

2022· article· en· W4312115153 on OpenAlex
Danie Beaulieu, Lisa A. Best

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eating Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsPsychologyDisordered eatingPsychoanalysisGender studiesSociologySocial psychologyClinical psychologyEating disorders

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the lack of research examining the relation between religiosity and disordered eating, at various points during the year, religious practices requiring changes in eating habits are typical. Few studies have identified how aspects of religiosity are associated with disordered eating attitudes and behaviours. Thus, we explored the interconnectedness of religiosity and gender on disordered eating attitudes and behaviours. METHODS: In total, 749 religious and non-religious participants completed online questionnaires assessing components of disordered eating and associated appearance-related pressures and internalizations (pressure from family, peers, and media, and internalization of the thin and muscular ideals). RESULTS: Among the 317 participants who identified as religious, 12.30% reported that their religious practice required a change in their eating habits, and 10.68% reported that they changed their eating habits for both religious purposes and as a method of weight loss/control. Overall, religious participants who indicated changing their eating habits for religious purposes experienced greater disordered eating and appearance-related pressures than theists who reported no change in their diet and non-religious respondents. Further, there was a significant interaction between gender and religiosity across the disordered eating variables. Results indicated that, compared to males who were not religious, those who were religious had higher scores on scales measuring disordered eating. Religious and non-religious women scored similarly on scales measuring other aspects of disordered eating (including Purging, Restricting, and Binge Eating). Further, compared to non-religious men, religious men, reported greater pressure from their family and peers; there was no difference in women. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should further explore gender differences across types and specific aspects of religiosity such as motivation to practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.270 · 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