MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015484023 · doi:10.1037/1524-9220.8.3.145

Media images of men: Trends and consequences of body conceptualization.

2007· article· en· W2015484023 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Men & Masculinity · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
FundersMount Allison University
KeywordsConceptualizationPsychologyMedia contentSocial psychologyMultimediaComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current investigation, the authors examined how men are presented in popular media and the effects of such presentations on male adolescents’ self-evaluations. In a content analysis of male models in advertisements of Sports Illustrated, Study 1 showed that media ideals increasingly emphasize aesthetic versus performance attributes of men. In Study 2, male adolescents (N 107) were randomly assigned to view either images of male ideals emphasizing aesthetic attributes, images of male ideals emphasizing performance attributes, or neutral images. Results showed that viewing media ideals that emphasize aesthetic attributes contributes to negative selfevaluations whereas viewing media ideals that emphasize performance attributes contributes to positive self-evaluations. These findings suggest that body conceptualization, and not simply body type (i.e., muscularity), plays a role in how men feel about themselves and their bodies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.342 · 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