The relationship between body mass index, body dissatisfaction, and eating pathology in sexual minority women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Eating pathology is more prevalent among women compared to men, but prevalence and correlates associated with eating pathology likely vary among subgroups of women. This study examines prevalence and correlates of restrictive and weight control-related eating pathology in sexual minority women. METHOD: Data were collected from the Pittsburgh Girls Study (PGS). Participants reported on sexual orientation, and race, and body mass index (BMI) was derived from interviewer collected height and weight. Participants completed the Body Image Measure and the Eating Attitudes Test-26. RESULTS: Sexual minority women reported higher BMIs [F (1, 862) = 14.69, p < .001], higher levels of body dissatisfaction [F (1, 960) = 3.12, p < .01], and higher levels of eating pathology [F (1, 950) = 14.21, p < .001] than heterosexual women. Body dissatisfaction mediated the relationship between BMI and eating pathology, and levels of associations were not attenuated by sexual minority status. Race moderated the association between sexual orientation and eating pathology; compared to all other groups, White sexual minority women had the highest level of eating pathology. Discussion Results indicate that White sexual minority women have higher levels of eating pathology than Black sexual minority women and both Black and White heterosexual women. Future studies that draw from larger and more diverse, community-based samples are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".