MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386142287 · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16454-5

Weight bias internalization and beliefs about the causes of obesity among the Canadian public

2023· article· en· W4386142287 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vida Forouhar, Iyoma Y. Edache, Ximena Ramos Salas, Angela S. Alberga

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsObesityMedicineBody mass indexPsychosocialDemographyBiostatisticsPublic healthInternalizationClinical psychologyGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Explicit weight bias is known as negative attitudes and beliefs toward individuals due to their weight status and can be perpetuated through misconceptions about the causes of obesity. Individuals may also experience weight bias internalization (WBI) when they internalize negative weight-related attitudes and self-stigmatize. There is a paucity of research on the beliefs about the causes of obesity and the prevalence of WBI among public Canadian samples. The aim of this study was to describe these attitudes and beliefs about obesity among a large Canadian sample across the weight spectrum. Methods A Canadian sample of adults ( N = 942; 51% Women; mean age group = 45–54 years; mean body mass index [BMI] = 27.3 ± 6.7 kg/m 2 ) completed an online questionnaire. Participants completed the Modified Weight Bias Internalization Scale, the Anti-Fat Attitudes Questionnaire, and the Causes of Obesity Questionnaire. Results Mean WBI score within the entire sample was 3.38 ​​ ± 1.58, and females had higher mean scores as compared to males ( p < 0.001). Mean scores were also higher among individuals with a BMI of > 30 kg/m 2 (4.16 ± 1.52), as compared to individuals with a BMI of 25–30 kg/m 2 (3.40 ± 1.50), and those with a BMI of 20–25 kg/m 2 or below 18.5 kg/m 2 (2.81 ± 1.44) ( p < 0.001 for all). Forty four percent of Canadians believed behavioural causes are very or extremely important in causing obesity, 38% for environmental causes, 28% for physiological and 27% for psychosocial causes. Stronger beliefs in behavioural causes were associated with higher levels of explicit weight bias. No BMI differences were reported on the four different subscales of the Causes of Obesity Questionnaire. Conclusions Weight bias internalization is prevalent among Canadians across all body weight statuses, and the public endorses behavioural causes of obesity, namely physical inactivity and overeating, more than its other causes. Findings warrant the reinforcement of efforts aimed at mitigating weight bias by educating the public about the complexity of obesity and by highlighting weight bias as a systemic issue that affects all Canadians living in diverse body weight statuses.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207