Beyond shape and weight: Exploring the relationship between nonbody determinants of self‐esteem and eating disorder symptoms in adolescent females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent research using the Shape and Weight-Based Self-Esteem (SAWBS) Inventory has shown that basing self-esteem on shape and weight is related to eating disorder and psychiatric symptoms. This study examined the relationship between other determinants of self-esteem assessed in the SAWBS Inventory (e.g., friendships, intimate relationships, school/work competence) and eating disorder and psychological health variables. METHOD: Female high school adolescents (N = 235) participated in this study. The relative contribution of the self-esteem dimensions to eating disorder and self-esteem was examined. RESULTS: In addition to shape and weight, basing self-esteem on intimate relationships was also related to higher eating disorder symptoms and lower body and global self-esteem. The only protective factors to emerge in this study were basing self-esteem on competence at school and other activities. DISCUSSION: Basing self-esteem on intimate relationships was associated with similar physical and health problems to basing self-esteem on shape and weight. The implications of these findings with regard to healthy adolescent development are addressed.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".