The Effects of Body Esteem Dimensions on Sexual Esteem in Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the relationship between men’s perceptions of their bodies and how they see themselves sexually. The goals of this study were to explore the following: (1) the relationship between dimensions of body esteem and sexual esteem, (2) the influence of adherence to male gender norms on the relationship between body esteem and sexual esteem, (3) the influence of body-focused anxiety on the relationship between body esteem and sexual esteem. In a convenience sample of 298 male participants (Mage = 32.34; SD = 13.34), we found that sexual attractiveness, upper body strength, and physical condition predicted sexual esteem, and that male gender norms and body image anxiety moderated this relationship. Exploratory items of body esteem for the jaw, wrists, height, and nose also significantly predicted sexual esteem. Given our findings of the role of various facets of body esteem in predicting sexual esteem, and the moderating effects of endorsement to male gender norms and body image anxiety on healthy sexual esteem, we maintain the importance of addressing these issues in the development of psychosocial, clinical, and sexual education programmesfor men, particularly in settings where men grapple with body and sexual esteem, and the implications of their masculinity.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".