MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1573496919 · doi:10.20381/ruor-16032

Ballet teachers: A source of perceived weight loss pressure in female ballet students.

2000· dissertation· en· W1573496919 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gina L. Bottamini

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2000
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalletBallet dancerPsychologyClassical balletKinesiologyPhysical therapyMedicineArtVisual artsDance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of this study was to examine the role of the ballet teacher as a perceived source of weight loss pressure for the ballet student. Another purpose was to examine whether there could be a positive relationship between the reported use of unhealthy methods of losing weight and the perception of the teacher as a source of weight loss pressure. Finally, we sought to identify the forms of communication used by the teachers that could be construed as weight loss pressures by the students. Forty ballet students participated in the study and completed the BALLET Scale, Eating Behaviors Scale and the Athletic Image Scale. Students were placed into one of two groups based on their answers to the Athletic Image Scale (combined-pressures, no-pressures). The results showed that students did perceive the teacher as a source of weight loss pressure. Further, a positive relationship existed between students who perceived the teacher as a source of weight loss pressure and unhealthy eating behaviors. The results also showed that students in the combined-pressures group perceived more forms of communication by the teacher as weight loss pressures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicDiversity and Impact of Dance→French-language works237,207→