Embodiment: Cultural and gender differences and associations with life satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although cultural factors have an important impact on individuals' experiences of living in their bodies, to date no studies have examined cross-cultural or gender differences in individuals' experience of embodiment. This study compared Swedish and Canadian women's experience of embodiment (and other body image related constructs), as well as Swedish men and women's experience of embodiment. Associations between embodiment, body esteem, and life satisfaction in men and women were also examined. Participants were 302 Swedish women, 242 Swedish men, and 216 Canadian women. Results showed that Swedish women had overall more positive experience of embodiment, more positive body esteem, lower thin-ideal internalization and lower levels of disordered eating than Canadian women. In comparison to Swedish men, however, Swedish women had more negative experience of embodiment in some ways, but similar experience of embodiment in other ways. Although associations between embodiment, body esteem, and life satisfaction were strong, embodiment was a better predictor of life satisfaction than body esteem for both men and women. Results are interpreted through the lens of the developmental theory of embodiment and consider cultural differences between Sweden and Canada, as well as Swedish society's both progress and problems in promoting gender equity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".