Functions of disordered eating behaviors: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience and clinician perspectives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One method to improve treatment outcomes for individuals with eating disorders (EDs) may be understanding and targeting individuals' motives for engaging in DE behaviors-or the functions of DE behaviors. The goal of this study was to investigate and categorize the various functions of DE behaviors from the perspectives of adults who engage in DE behaviors and clinicians who treat EDs. METHODS: Individuals who engage in DE behaviors (n = 16) and clinicians who treat EDs (n = 14) were interviewed, and a thematic analysis was conducted to determine key functions of DE behaviors. RESULTS: Four main functions of DE behaviors were identified by the authors: (1) alleviating shape, weight, and eating concerns; (2) regulating emotions; (3) regulating one's self-concept; and (4) regulating interpersonal relationships/communicating with others. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in participant responses, particularly regarding the relevance of alleviating shape and weight concerns as an DE behavior function, highlight the importance of individualized conceptualizations of DE behavior functions for any given client.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it