MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057723340 · doi:10.1002/eat.10083

Beyond shape and weight: Exploring the relationship between nonbody determinants of self‐esteem and eating disorder symptoms in adolescent females

2002· article· en· W2057723340 on OpenAlexaff
Josie Geller, Shannon L. Zaitsoff, Suja Srikameswaran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-esteemPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyEating disordersHuman physical appearanceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207