Coping with Body Image Threats among College Women: The Swimsuit Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored college women’s (N = 104) strategies for coping with a high- and low-social-evaluativebody image threat. Using an experimental design, participants read and imagined themselves in one of twoscenarios: a high-social-evaluative body image threat condition (modeling a swimsuit in front of friends) or alow-social-evaluative body image threat condition (modeling a swimsuit alone) and described strategies formanaging these situations. An inductive and deductive thematic approach was used to analyze the writtenresponses. In order of frequency, the following themes were found for the high-social-evaluative threat condition:avoidance, appeasement, positive rational acceptance, social support, and social comparison. In order offrequency for the low-social-evaluative condition the following themes were found: appeasement, positiverational acceptance, avoidance, social support, outsider’s opinion, and social comparison. Overall, maladaptivestrategies for managing body image stressors (avoidance and appeasement) were reported the most frequentlyacross conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".