The instructional practice implications of a school reform model versus no school reform model on reading achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight stigma reflects discrimination or stereotyping based on weight, and this construct is associated with body dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and eating pathology. Recent research suggests that internalizing weight stigma (i.e., endorsing negative stereotypes about one's weight) mediates associations between experienced weight stigma and disordered eating. However, much of this research has been cross-sectional and limited data exist on associations between weight stigma constructs and eating pathology across the weight spectrum. The current study explored whether internalized weight stigma differentially mediates the relationship between experiencing weight stigma and disordered eating symptoms over time in higher-weight versus non-higher-weight individuals. Undergraduate students (N = 661, 80 % Female, 28.5 % higher weight) completed surveys at three time points over six months. Multigroup path analyses tested whether the effects of experienced weight stigma and internalized weight stigma on binge eating, food restriction, and body dissatisfaction differed between the higher-weight and non-higher-weight groups. All models showed improved fit when path estimates were allowed to vary between groups. Mediation analyses indicated a significant indirect effect of experienced weight stigma on binge eating via internalized weight stigma among the higher-weight group but not the non-higher-weight group. Only internalized weight stigma was directly associated with body dissatisfaction across weight status. A direct effect of experienced weight stigma on restriction was found in the non-higher-weight group. Findings suggest that, in general, weight stigma negatively affects body image and eating behavior, although specific effects may vary depending on one's weight.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".