MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075935079 · doi:10.1002/eat.20006

Evaluation of a school‐based program designed to improve body image satisfaction, global self‐esteem, and eating attitudes and behaviors: A replication study

2004· article· en· W2075935079 on OpenAlexaff
Gail McVey, Ron Davis, Stacey Tweed, Brian F. Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationLakehead UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDietingSelf-esteemPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyPerfectionism (psychology)Life satisfactionFeelingSocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatryObesityWeight loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a life-skills promotion program designed to improve body image satisfaction and global self-esteem, while reducing negative eating attitudes and behaviors and feelings of perfectionism, all of which have been identified as predisposing factors to disordered eating. METHOD: A total of 258 girls with a mean age of 11.8 years (intervention group = 182 and control group = 76) completed questionnaires before, and 1 week after, the six-session school-based program, and again 6 and 12 months later. RESULTS: The intervention was successful in improving body image satisfaction and global self-esteem and in reducing dieting attitude scores at post intervention only. The gains were not maintained at the 12-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: The need to assess the influence of health promotion programs on predisposing risk factors, compared with problem-based outcome measures, is discussed.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNon-randomized trial · Other design
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

Citations142
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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