Extreme weight control behaviors among adolescent athletes: Links with weight-related maltreatment from parents and coaches and sport ethic norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of extreme weight-control behaviors is prevalent among adolescent athletes and may result from individual and sport-specific factors. Weight-related maltreatment from coaches and parents, and conformity to sport ethic norms have recently been linked to the use of extreme weight-control behaviors. This study aims to investigate the role of sport ethic norms and weight-related maltreatment from coaches and parents in the use of extreme weight-control behaviors among adolescent athletes. A sample of 999 French-Canadian athletes aged 14-17 years competing in a variety of sports completed an online survey assessing extreme weight-control behaviors, weight-related maltreatment from coaches and parents, and conformity to sport ethic norms. A total of 16.9% of the adolescent athletes reported having adopted extreme weight-control behaviors during their athletic careers. Extreme weight-control behaviors were significantly more prevalent among girls (19.75% vs 9.7% in boys) and weight-class-sport athletes (44%). In addition, 7.4% of the sample experienced at least one type of weight-related maltreatment by coaches or parents. Sex, weight-related neglect by coaches and parents, and weight-related psychological violence by coaches explained 24.4% of extreme weight-control behaviors variance. Indeed, participants who engaged in extreme weight-control behaviors experienced significantly more violence than the other participants did. In contrast, no differences were observed between people who engaged in extreme weight-control behaviors and those who did not due to conformity to sport ethic norms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".