Human Rights and Human Experience in Eating Disorders
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
Over the last quarter century, hospital admissions for eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa have continued to rise. During that same period, the law pertaining to food-refusal has generated new challenges. New legal principles have come to prominence in the ongoing effort to introduce robust human rights protections in care settings. And we are seeing a subtle but important shift in the legal framework within which cases of persistent food-refusal are adjudicated. An earlier legal approach could focus narrowly on questions of whether, for example, anorexia nervosa is a mental disorder, whether a particular person living with anorexia presents a “danger to self or others,” and whether involuntary hospital treatment is effective. By contrast, the emerging legal approach explicitly requires attention to the decision-making processes at work in food-refusal, and to the “beliefs and values” that inform a person’s “will and preferences” – both as regards food and as regards treatment. The old questions were hard. The new questions are harder, and they call for new forms of investigation into the phenomenology and psycho-social dynamics of food-refusal.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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