Body Size Misperception and Dissatisfaction in Elementary School Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To examine the association between body size perception (BSP) and body size dissatisfaction (BSD) in elementary school children and to document the potential contribution of individual factors [age, sex, and actual body size (BMI Z -scores: BMI Z )] that may influence their relationship. Methods: This study included 269 children (124 boys and 145 girls) between 6 and 13 years of age (9.2 ± 1.6 years). The BSP score was calculated as the difference between the perceived actual body size and BMI Z (actual body size). A negative BSP score indicated an underestimation of their body size. To assess the BSD score, the difference between perceived actual body size and desired body size was calculated. A positive BSD score indicated a desire to be thinner. Results: Perceived actual body size was smaller than BMI Z , independent of age group and weight status. Overall, 64% of children underestimated their body size. The young children living with obesity demonstrated the highest misperception. Results also showed that the proportion of children who desired to be thinner was higher in overweight and obese subgroups. No significant relationship was found between BSP and BSD scores in the entire sample, while a positive association was observed among younger children in the normal-weight and obese subgroups ( r = 0.40; p < 0.001 and r = 0.78; p < 0.05, respectively). Conclusions: Underestimation and dissatisfaction of body size are more prevalent in children living with overweight/obesity. Moreover, there is an association between BSP and dissatisfaction, yet this association is dependent on age and weight status.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".