Men's and women's drive for muscularity: Gender differences and cognitive and behavioral correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored gender differences in drive for muscularity (DFM), as well as cognitive and behavioral correlates of DFM. Although men (n = 71) reported a higher DFM than women (n = 126), the difference in DFM disappeared when the emphasis on the form of muscularity shifted from muscle size to muscle tone. Men and women reported a number of similar cognitive and behavioral correlates of DFM. The most commonly reported were physical activity (reported by 74.6% of men and 73.0% of women), diet (33.8% of men, 26.2% of women), cognitive problem solving (32.4% of men, 29.4% of women), leisure activity (21.1% of men, 23.8% of women), and social support (18.3% of men, 23.0% of women). Overall, these results support the relevance of DFM to both men and women and the need to better understand a broad range of cognitive and behavioral correlates of DFM.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".