Body image, physical activity, and viewing patterns of physique images among women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to media images of thin-ideal female physiques is linked to numerous maladaptive psychosocial outcomes, yet factors associated with propensity for media exposure have not been identified. This study examined the gaze patterns of women who were implicitly exposed to images of thin-ideal and average weight female models, and to test if behavioural (physical activity) and personal (body image and affect) factors differentiate viewing patterns. Healthy weight females (N=32) completed a computer-based experiment and self-report questionnaires on affect, perceptions, and behaviour. In the laboratory, one calendar depicting a thin-ideal female model and another depicting an average-weight female model were placed on either side of the participant. Unknown to participants, cameras recorded their gaze behaviour. The number of looks at each image was analyzed. A MANCOVA controlling for ethnicity and propensity for social comparison revealed that physically active women gazed at the average-weight image relatively more than at the ideal image, whereas inactive women did the opposite (physical activity x image interaction, F(1,28)=4.36, 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".