Geographic region effects on adolescent physical self: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this exploratory study were to examine gender differences in physical self‐concept, and the influence of geographic place of residence on both adolescents' physical self‐concept and gender differences in physical self‐concept. The Physical Self Inventory was used to measure physical self‐perceptions and global self‐esteem. Participants were 323 boys and 282 girls living in the North or South of France. First a Mann‐Whitney U test was used to assess gender differences and the influence of geographic region differences on physical self‐perceptions (physical self‐worth, physical condition, sport competence, attractive body, physical strength) and global self‐esteem. Then a Kruskal‐Wallis ANOVA for ranked data was used to assess geographic region influence on boys' and girls' physical self‐concept and global self‐esteem. The results showed that not only did boys have significantly higher physical self scores (on all scales) and global self‐esteem than girls, but also that adolescents from the North of France had higher physical self scores (on all scales) and global self‐esteem than adolescents from the South. Moreover, many differences were found between boys and girls on physical self scores (on all scales) and global self‐esteem according to their geographic place of residence. The main results showed that girls from the South had lower scores on the attractive body, physical strength, physical self‐worth, and global self‐esteem scales than all other adolescents, and that boys from the South had lower scores on the attractive body and global self‐esteem scales than did boys and girls from the North.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".