Relationships Between Violent Sexual Victimization and Muscle‐Building Exercise among Adolescents from the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the association between violent sexual victimization and muscle-building exercise among adolescents. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the 2019 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (N = 8408) were analyzed. Two indicators of non-dating-related sexual violence (lifetime, past 12 months), along with one indicator of adolescent sexual violence (past 12 months), were assessed. Days of muscle-building in the past week were reported. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the associations between the three violent sexual victimization variables and muscle-building exercise. RESULTS: Among the sample (50.3% girls), lifetime violent sexual victimization (relative risk ratio [RRR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29 to 2.72), past 12-month violent sexual victimization (RRR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.22), and past 12-month sexual dating violence (RRR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.51) were associated greater relative risk of high engagement (ie, 6 to 7 days) in muscle-building exercise relative to no engagement. CONCLUSIONS: A history of violent sexual victimization is associated with greater involvement in muscle-building exercise, particularly among adolescent girls. Engagement in muscle-building exercise in relation to violent sexual victimization may be a means of emotion regulation and occur due to body dissatisfaction resulting from experiencing violence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".