“Hugely traumatic things happened”: ‘Well’ siblings’ retrospective insights alongside anorexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: ‘Well’ siblings of individuals with anorexia experience emotional distress and familial discord from their exposure to the illness. With their needs and experiences frequently misunderstood by families, clinicians, and researchers alike, siblings are often considered ‘the forgotten kin’. This retrospective study explored how adult siblings experience their own identity and positioning within the family because of anorexia’s pervasiveness during their childhood and adolescent years. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with a community sample of female-identifying adults (n = 5) whose siblings have been recovered from anorexia for a minimum of one year. Informed by a narrative framework, the data were assessed using the interpretive description (ID) strategy and analyzed with the constant comparison method. Results: Two main themes and seven sub-themes emerged. Participants reported experiencing conflict and distress that was traumatic in nature. They described being treated as a ‘well’ sibling while their sisters were treated as distinctly ‘unwell’ – a dichotomy
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".