MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pumping Iron: The Social Advantages of Weight Training

2012· article· en· W2103760267 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biobehavioral Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVignetteTrainerStereotype (UML)PersonalityWeight controlBody weightSocial psychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the positive exerciser stereotype in weight trainers. Male ( n = 135) and female ( n = 191) participants read a vignette in which the weight training habits of the male target were manipulated. Participants then rated the target on a series of personality and physical attributes. Analyses were conducted separately for both males and females. A main effect of target type emerged ( p < .001) across gender on both personality and physical attributes, which was not moderated by impression motivation. The typical and excessive weight training targets were perceived more favorably in comparison to the nonweight training and control targets, suggesting that the weight trainer stereotype for men does exist and can vary according to the gender of the observer.

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.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.274 · 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