Body image and physical activity over the course of a pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research investigating body image in pregnant women has generally examined negative body image outcomes, finding pregnant women have more negative body image in early pregnancy compared to mid-to-late pregnancy. There has been a lack of research investigating how constructs of positive body image and self-objectification differ across pregnancy. Positive body image is associated with positive health behaviours (e.g., physical activity); thus, it is important to understand pregnant women's experiences of positive body image. Further, physical activity has been linked to positive body image through an increase in embodiment and a decrease in self-objectification; whether this holds true for the pregnant population is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether body appreciation, self-objectification, and embodiment differed by trimester, and whether physical activity is associated with body appreciation via an increase in embodiment and decrease in self-objectification. Thirty-one women in the first trimester, 55 in the second trimester, and 75 in the third trimester completed measures of body appreciation, self-objectification, embodiment, and physical activity. Multivariate analysis of covariance showed all measures differed by trimester. Post-hoc tests showed body appreciation and embodiment were higher and self-objectification lower in third trimester compared to first trimester. Embodiment was also higher in the third trimester compared to the second trimester. A serial mediation analysis revealed physical activity was associated with higher body appreciation through an increase in embodiment and a decrease in self-objectification. This suggests physical activity could to improve positive body image and its associated health outcomes in pregnant women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".