MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4376870959 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068561

Effect of body image perception and skin-lightening practices on mental health of Filipino emerging adults: a mixed-methods approach protocol

2023· article· en· W4376870959 on OpenAlexaff
Zypher Jude G. Regencia, Jean‐Philippe Gouin, Mary Ann J. Ladia, Jaime Montoya, Emmanuel S. Baja

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Mental healthPerceptionPublic healthAlternative medicineGerontologyFamily medicinePsychiatryNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The rampant distribution of idealised images on the internet may lead the general public to improve their body appearance in a way that is sometimes excessive, compulsive or detrimental to other aspects of their lives. There is a decreasing appreciation of body image among emerging adults and an increasing trend on skin-lightening practices linked with psychological distress. This protocol describes the mixed-method approach to assess the relationships among body image perception, skin-lightening practices and mental well-being of Filipino emerging adults and determine the factors that influence them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An explanatory sequential mixed-method approach will be used. A cross-sectional study design will involve an online self-administered questionnaire of 1258 participants, while a case study design will involve in-depth interviews with 25 participants. Data analysis will use generalised linear models and structural equation modelling with a Bayesian network for the quantitative data. Moreover, the qualitative data will use an inductive approach in thematic analysis. A contiguous narrative approach will integrate the quantitative and qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of the Philippines Manila Review Ethics Board has approved this protocol (UPMREB 2022-0407-01). The study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles and conference presentations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.005

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.483 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicEating Disorders and Behaviors→French-language works237,207→