MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166638423 · doi:10.1177/1359105315573449

Do body-related shame and guilt mediate the association between weight status and self-esteem?

2015· article· en· W2166638423 on OpenAlexafffund
Eva Pila, Catherine M. Sabiston, Jennifer Brunet, Andrée L. Castonguay, Jennifer O’Loughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalConcordia UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsShameMediationSelf-esteemPsychologyAssociation (psychology)OverweightClinical psychologySelf-conceptDevelopmental psychologyLongitudinal studyBody mass indexSocial psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals who are overweight or obese report body image concerns and lower self-esteem. However, little is known about the mechanisms underpinning these associations. The objective of this study was to test body-related shame and guilt as mediators in the association between weight status and self-esteem. Young adult participants (n = 790) completed assessments of self-esteem and body-related guilt and shame, and weight status indicators were measured by trained technicians. Findings from multiple mediation analyses suggest that body-related shame mediates the relationship between weight status and self-esteem. If replicated in longitudinal studies, these findings suggest that reducing body-related emotions may have important implications for improving self-esteem in clinical weight management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207