Body image emotions, perceptions, and cognitions distinguish physically active and inactive smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if body image emotions (body-related shame and guilt, weight-related stress), perceptions (self-perceived overweight), or cognitions (trying to change weight) differ between adolescents characterized by smoking and physical activity (PA) behavior. METHODS: Data for this cross-sectional analysis were collected in 2010-11 and were available for 1017 participants (mean (SD) age = 16.8 (0.5) years). Participants were categorized according to smoking and PA status into four groups: inactive smokers, inactive non-smokers, active smokers and active non-smokers. Associations between body image emotions, perceptions and cognitions, and group membership were estimated in multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Participants who reported body-related shame were less likely (OR (95% CI) = 0.52 (0.29-0.94)) to be in the active smoker group than the inactive smoker group; those who reported body-related guilt and those trying to gain weight were more likely (2.14 (1.32-3.48) and 2.49 (1.22-5.08), respectively) to be in the active smoker group than the inactive smoker group; those who were stressed about weight and those perceiving themselves as overweight were less likely to be in the active non-smoker group than the inactive smoker group (0.79 (0.64-0.97) and 0.41 (0.19-0.89), respectively). CONCLUSION: Body image emotions and cognitions differentiated the active smoker group from the other three groups.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".