Affect, Disordered Eating Attitudes and Behaviors, and Orthorexia Nervosa Among Women: Mediation Through Intuitive Eating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intuitive eating is an adaptive eating style that could help explain part of the relation between affect and eating behaviors. However, research in this area remains limited. The objectives of this study are twofold. First, we examine the relation between affect, disordered eating attitudes and behaviors (DEABs), and orthorexia nervosa (ON). Second, we investigate the mediating role of intuitive eating regarding these relations. A sample of 197 French-speaking Canadian women, aged from 18 to 69, participated in the study. The results showed that negative affect was related to DEABs and ON, but not positive affect. Statistically significant associations were also found between affect (negative and positive) and the four dimensions of intuitive eating. Additionally, negative relations were found between intuitive eating dimensions and most types of eating behaviors (encompassing DEABs and ON), except for dieting. Finally, our results revealed that the relations between affect (positive and negative) and most types of eating behaviors were indirect (i.e., suggesting mediation) via intuitive eating. Based on these results, it seems that interventions addressing affect regulation and eating behaviors could benefit from including a focus on intuitive eating.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".