Physical activity and body image among males: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three meta-analyses conclude that physical activity (PA) is positively related to body image (BI). Historically, PA and BI research has been disproportionately focused on women. For example, the most recent meta-analysis (Campbell & Hausenblas, 2009) extracted 56 effect sizes for women and only 12 for men. Although these authors reported no statistical differences in the effects of PA on BI between men and women, the relatively few studies of men limit the generalizability of the findings. Further, little is known about moderators of the PA-BI relationship among men as existing meta-analyses have failed to separate male and female samples for these analyses. This is noteworthy as many variables (e.g., drive for muscularity) may affect the PA – BI relationship differently between males and females. With increased research regarding male BI in recent years, the purpose of this study was to update meta-analytic evidence regarding the PA – BI relationship among men. A literature search returned 34,758 articles;54 met inclusion criteria. A medium effect size was obtained across all studies (Hedges g=0.571, 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".