Exploring body ideal internalization, sociocultural pressures, and probable muscle dysmorphia in Canadian and American boys and men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine whether the internalization of body ideals and sociocultural pressures to adhere to body ideals are associated with a greater likelihood of having probable muscle dysmorphia. Cross-sectional data from 1553 boys and men ages 15-35 from Canada and the United States were used. Multiple logistic regression analyses determined the association between the internalization of three body ideals, sociocultural pressures to adhere to body ideals from four sources, and having probable muscle dysmorphia. The odds of having probable muscle dysmorphia were significantly greater for those who internalized the muscular ideal and general attractiveness ideal. Conversely, endorsing the thin/low body fat ideal was significantly associated with lower odds of having probable muscle dysmorphia. Pressure from peers, but no other sources, showed a significant association with greater odds of having probable muscle dysmorphia. Findings expand prior research by investigating correlates of muscle dysmorphia versus muscle dysmorphia symptomatology. The strong association with internalization of the general attractiveness ideal provides new insights into how overall appearance may be highly relevant for boys and men with muscle dysmorphia, warranting future investigation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".