Why Do People Engage in Eating Disorder Behaviours?
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
Eating disorders (EDs) are serious mental illnesses often with poor prognosis. Personalizing evidence-based treatments based on an individual’s reasons for engaging in ED behaviours – or the functions of EDs – may improve treatment outcomes; however, no validated measures assessing these functions exist. The goal of this study was to complete the initial steps in developing a measure of ED functions. Individuals who engage in ED behaviours (n = 16) and clinicians who treat EDs (n = 14) were interviewed, and a thematic analysis was conducted to determine key functions of EDs. Four main functions of EDs were identified: 1) alleviating shape, weight, and eating concerns, 2) regulating emotions, 3) regulating one’s self-concept/ maladaptive schemas, and 4) regulating interpersonal relationships/ communicating with others. Self-report items were developed based on these themes to create a 102-item measure of ED functions that will be further developed and validated in future research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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