BEING PROUD OF ONESELF AS A PERSON OR BEING PROUD OF ONE’S PHYSICAL APEARANCE: WHAT MATTERS FOR FEELING WELL IN ADOLESCENCE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the numerous studies aimed at examining the link between appearance satisfaction and self-esteem at adolescence very few, except Zumpf and Harter (1989), have specifically examined the directionality of the relation. Hence, the first goal of this study was to examine the distribution of adolescents, according to their gender and grade level, within each of the following two groups: those who acknowledge that the evaluation of their physical appearance precedes and determines their global self-esteem, and those who conversely believe that they must first be satisfied with their global sense of self in order to be satisfied with their physical appearance. The second goal was to examine whether adolescents' perceived competence in various domains of daily life functioning differs according to how they value physical appearance. Participants were 1,362 adolescents (540 boys and 822 girls) from the 7th, 9th and 11th grades. Overall, 35% of adolescents acknowledged that their perceived appearance determined their self-esteem, with boys and girls being proportionally distributed between the groups. Adolescents in the group more concerned with appearance reported lower satisfaction with their physical appearance, lower self-esteem than others, and lower perceived competence in the scholastic and social domains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".