MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298748175 · doi:10.1080/10911359.2015.1091240

Are there differences in gender, race, and age regarding body dissatisfaction?

2015· article· en· W2298748175 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Heather Dye

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsDietingPsychologyInternalizationDisordered eatingHuman physical appearanceClinical psychologyEating disordersDevelopmental psychologyMedicineWeight lossObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine any differences that may exist among demographic variables such as gender, age, and race in regard to internalization of society and media messages leading to body dissatisfaction that may lead to disordered eating behaviors such as preoccupation with weight, dieting, and eating restraint. A total of 324 participants completed the demographic questionnaire, the Multidimensional Body Self Relations Questionnaire, the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire for women, the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-Revised-Male-Version for men, and Rotter’s Internal-External (I-E) Locus of Control Scale. The results of this study found, as predicted, that Caucasians reported higher internalization, higher body dissatisfaction, and higher preoccupation with weight, dieting, and eating restraint than African Americans. This study showed no differences regarding men’s and women’s internalization or body dissatisfaction but did reveal that women reported higher preoccupation with weight, dieting, and eating restraint than men. Regarding age, this study found that age did not predict internalization, body dissatisfaction, or preoccupation with weight, dieting, and eating restraint.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human Behavior in the Social EnvironmentSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207