Intergenerational Contradictions in Body Image Standards Among Australian Immigrant Mothers and Children: A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this mixed-methods study, we explored how gender and cultural factors, including social status were linked with children’s immigrant backgrounds and their body image dissatisfaction and weight management strategies in Australia. Cross-sectional data analysis of 10-11-year-old children from the Birth cohort of the “Longitudinal Study of Australian Children” showed that approximately half of the children were dissatisfied with their body images. A higher proportion of these were children of immigrants from low-and-middle-income-countries. Additionally, about three-quarters children were actively managing their weights. Children of immigrants from low-and-middle-income-countries constituted a higher proportion of these also. Among boys, desiring a heavier body was highest for those with immigrant mothers from low-and-middle-income-countries, while the desire to be thinner was highest among girls of immigrants from low-and-middle-income-countries. Although the percentage of children who adopted strategies to gain weight was very small, boys of immigrants from low-and-middle-income-countries, in particular, were almost three times as likely as non-immigrant boys, to try to gain weight (18% vs 5.9%, respectively). Qualitative face-to-face interviews with immigrant mothers and their 8-11-year-old children revealed intergenerational variations in body image standards. Maternal body image standards were drawn from their origin countries, but children followed Australian norms. Despite increased obesity awareness amongst mothers, they desired higher body weight for their children, due to an association with high status and health in origin countries. However, children were aware of the stigma, unpopularity, and low status associated with high body weights in Australia. To reduce cultural and status-based obesity inequalities, Australian obesity prevention plans must include culturally responsive health promotion strategies for immigrant parents and their children to improve their knowledge about healthy weights and weight management strategies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".