MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336650380 · doi:10.5539/mas.v10n3p178

The Relationship of Identity Styles and Body Image with Anxiety among High School Students

2016· article· en· W2336650380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meisam Dehvari, Hossein Jenaabadi, Abdulwahab Pourghaz

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyPsychologyNormativeIdentity (music)Style (visual arts)PopulationDescriptive statisticsPearson product-moment correlation coefficientClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyDemographyPsychiatryMathematicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The present study aimed to examine the relationship of identity styles and body image with anxiety among<br />students. This was a descriptive-correlational study. The statistical population included 240 second period male<br />high school students in Saravan. To examine identity styles, body image and anxiety, respectively, Identity Style<br />Questionnaire (IS-6G), the Fisher Body Image Scale (1970), and the Cattell Anxiety Scale Questionnaire were<br />used as data collection tools. The obtained data was analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics<br />(Pearson correlation coefficient and regression analysis). The results of the current study revealed that identity<br />styles and body image were significantly and positively related to anxiety. Moreover, among identity styles,<br />informative and commitment styles had no significant relationships with anxiety; however, normative identity<br />style was significantly and negatively correlated with anxiety, such that with an increase in normative identity<br />style, anxiety decreased. Additionally, the results indicated that confused/avoidant identity style was significantly<br />and positively related to anxiety.</p>

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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207