Binge eating disorder recognition and stigma among an adult community sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite being the most prevalent eating disorder, Binge eating disorder (BED) remains largely unrecognized and lacks awareness among the general public, where it is also highly stigmatized. Common stigma surrounding BED includes the belief that individuals with this disorder are responsible for their condition and lack willpower and self-control. Research on BED recognition and stigma among lay adults is scarce. Enhancing public recognition of BED and reducing the stigma associated with it is crucial, as this could significantly improve access to treatment. The aim of the present study was to examine BED recognition and stigma within an adult community sample, and to identify associated respondent characteristics, including sociodemographic and psychosocial factors. METHODS: = 35.20 ± 14.52) completed an online survey. Participants were presented with a vignette depicting a woman with BED and obesity, followed by questionnaires assessing BED recognition, stigma, and other respondent characteristics. Independent samples t-tests were performed to compare participants who recognized BED in the vignette with those who did not, based on sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, income, education) and psychosocial variables (i.e., explicit and internalized weight bias, familiarity with BED). A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to identify the sociodemographic and psychosocial variables that were the most important in explaining the variance in stigma towards BED. RESULTS: Results indicated that 33% of participants identified BED as the main problem in the vignette. Those who recognized BED were younger, more educated, more familiar with BED, and exhibited lower levels of stigma towards BED. The most significant factor in explaining stigma towards BED was explicit weight bias, particularly attributing obesity to a lack of willpower and disliking people with obesity. Identifying as a man and older age were also associated with greater stigma towards BED. CONCLUSION: The findings of the current study highlight the importance of comprehensive public awareness campaigns to improve recognition of BED and to reduce associated stigma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".