Functions of disordered eating behaviors: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience and clinician perspectives
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.
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 | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".