MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162984841 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3rymq

Thin-Ideal Images and Affect: An Investigation Using Magazines and Minimizing Demand

2019· preprint· en· W3162984841 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Vahedi, Stephen Charles Want

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Ideal (ethics)Context (archaeology)Almost ideal demand systemAdvertisingPsychologyOn demandControl (management)Social psychologyMultimediaComputer scienceBusinessPolitical scienceCommunicationArtificial intelligenceEconomicsHistoryProduction (economics)Microeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women and girls generally experience slightly reduced satisfaction with their appearance following exposure to thin-ideal media images. Inconsistent findings have been obtained regarding the impact of such images on positive and negative affect. However, in experimental studies, researchers have typically exposed participants to a concentrated dose of such images, isolated from context, instead of showing them in an everyday context such as within a fashion magazine. This has implications for external validity because the context in which thin-ideal images are viewed may change their effects. Concentrated exposure also increases demand characteristics. The present study investigated the effect of thin-ideal images presented in magazines on viewers’ affect, while manipulating the level of demand characteristics. Undergraduate female students (N = 172) were assigned to three groups (Implied Demand, Minimized Demand, and Control), two of which were exposed to fashion magazines; the third group was exposed to control magazines containing no thin-ideal images. Demand characteristics were manipulated when the experimenter provided the magazines during a putative break period, and participants’ affect was assessed both pre- and post-exposure. Our results indicated that exposure to fashion magazines was no different from exposure to control magazines in the effects on participants’ affect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAesthetic Perception and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207