Perceptions of Body Weight Among Older Adults: Analyses of the Intersection of Gender, Race, and Socioeconomic Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We examine the effects of gender, race, and socioeconomic status (SES) on perceptions of body weight among older adults and the role of status-based differences in BMI in these processes. METHODS: Data are derived from face-to-face interviews with 1,164 adults aged 65 years and older in the District of Columbia and two counties in Maryland in 2000-2001. RESULTS: With "perceived appropriate weight" as the comparison group, multinomial logistic regression analyses indicate that white adults, women, and high-SES individuals are more likely than black adults, men, and low-SES individuals to describe themselves as overweight or obese. However, these disparities are observed only after statistically adjusting for race, gender, and SES disparities in BMI. Moreover, the positive effect of SES on the likelihood of reporting overweight or obese perceptions is strongest among black women. Among low SES individuals, white women are more likely than men and black women to describe themselves as obese (relative to the "perceived appropriate weight" category). DISCUSSION: Our observations underscore the importance of taking SES contingencies into account when exploring race-gender differences in perceived body weight. This study further contributes to the literature by documenting the important suppression patterns associated with race, gender, and SES differences in BMI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".