MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214775006 · doi:10.1123/cssep.2021-0032

An Examination of a Dissonance-Based Body Image Promotion Intervention: A Case Study of Youth Female Soccer Players

2022· article· en· W4214775006 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine E. Hirsch, Irene L. Muir, Krista J. Munroe‐Chandler, Todd M. Loughead

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Studies in Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Cognitive dissonanceAthletesPsychologyPromotion (chess)Focus groupPhysical therapyMedicineClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present case study aimed to modify, implement, and evaluate a sport-specific dissonance-based body image promotion intervention for female adolescent athletes. The case included 33 female adolescent soccer players (11–14 years old) who completed the Youth-Female Athlete Body Project, a 4-week team-based intervention. The intervention was evaluated using quantitative measures gathered pre- and postintervention and qualitative responses from focus groups that were administered 1-week postintervention. The quantitative assessments examined body-ideal internalization, aesthetic and functional body image, perceived body shape, and fat talk. Significant decreases in participants’ thin-ideal and muscular-ideal internalization as well as fat talk were found postintervention. Focus groups were conducted with a subset of participants ( n = 24) to gather insight into the positives and negatives of the intervention, intervention outcomes, and recommendations for future intervention delivery. Reflections from the practitioners are provided and recommendations for effective intervention implementation from practitioners’ and participants’ perspectives are discussed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Studies in Sport and Exercise PsychologySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207