Flourishing despite eating disorder risk: exploring undergraduate student academic, social and mental health outcomes via the dual continua model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating disorder (ED) risk is pervasive among undergraduate students, however, psychopathology and well-being can vary notably. Using National College Health Assessment (NCHA-III) (2023) data, 277 Atlantic Canadian undergraduate students (mean age 22.4 years) who screened positive for an ED based on the Sick Control One-stone Fat Food (SCOFF) scale were separated into flourishing (19.4%) and non-flourishing sub-samples using the Mental Health Continuum - Short Form (MHC-SF) scale. Chi square tests revealed that flourishing students were less likely to report problems with academics, faculty, and relationships, loneliness and isolation, and more likely to report stronger university belongingness. Flourishing students also indicated better self-assessed health, as well as, lower psychological distress, suicidality risk, psychological/mental health service utilization, and comorbid anxiety and depression. While SCOFF scores were significantly lower among flourishing students, body mass index (BMI) levels did not vary. Findings are considered via the dual continua model, with recommendations to enhance potential to flourish.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".