Comparing the Body-Esteem of Adolescent and Young Adult Burn Survivors to a Nonburned Control Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the body-esteem (BE) of adolescents and young adults long-term burn survivors to a non-burned control group. No previous study has compared the BE of young burn survivors to a control group. 161 burn survivors between the ages of 12 and 25 completed the Body-esteem Scale for Adolescents and Adults (BES). The sample characteristics were as follows: 60% Euro-American, 15% African-American, 15% Hispanic, and 10% Other; Mean Age = 15.3 (SD = 2.7). Mean age burned = 7.4 (SD = 5.1); mean length of time burned = 8 years (SD = 8.0); mean number of body parts with visible scars (out of 14) was 5.5 (SD = 4.5); mean number of burn-related surgeries = 8.5 (SD=10). Mendelson, Mendelson & White (2001) collected the normative sample (n = 1334; mean age = 16.8; range 12–25) from English-speaking students in elementary schools, high schools and universities in Montreal, Quebec. We hypothesized that in comparison to the control group, the burn survivor group would score significantly lower on the BE-Appearance subscale (satisfaction with general appearance) but not the BE-Weight subscale (weight satisfaction). High scores on the BES indicate higher BE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".