MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of shape- and weight-based self-esteem in adolescents

2000· article· en· W2066034330 on OpenAlexaff
Josie Geller, Suja Srikameswaran, Sarah J. Cockell, Shannon L. Zaitsoff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health CareSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFeelingDiscriminant validitySelf-esteemPsychometricsClinical psychologyEating disordersDevelopmental psychologyEating Disorder InventoryInternal consistencySocial psychologyBulimia nervosa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The Adolescent version of the Shape and Weight-Based Self-Esteem (SAWBS-A) Inventory provides a contextual measure of the importance of shape and weight to overall feelings of self-worth. The psychometric properties of the adult SAWBS Inventory have been previously established. The present research examined the psychometric properties of this measure in adolescent females, and compared structural aspects of self-concept in symptomatic and nonsymptomatic individuals. METHOD: A school sample of 197 adolescents completed the SAWBS-A Inventory and measures to assess concurrent and discriminant validity. A subsample completed the SAWBS-A Inventory a second time, 1 week later. RESULTS: SAWBS-A scores were stable over 1 week and correlated with measures of eating disorder symptomatology. The scores also discriminated between adolescents reporting few or no disturbed eating symptoms and possible/probable cases. Comparison of self-esteem profiles in these two groups revealed that in addition to body, the groups differed in the extent to which facial appearance contributed to feelings of self-worth. CONCLUSIONS: The SAWBS-A Inventory may be useful in examining structural dimensions of self-esteem in adolescents.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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