The prospective associations between internalized weight bias and physical activity among adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the associations between internalized weight bias and physical activity (resistance training, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; MVPA) across weight perceptions over one year among Canadian adolescents. Participants in Years 10 (T1; 2021–2022) and 11 (T2; 2022–2023) of the COMPASS study completed a cross-sectional self-report survey each year ( N = 23,574, M age = 14.3 (SD = 1.2), 51.5 % cisgender girls). Linear mixed effects multilevel models stratified by weight perception (underweight, about the right weight, overweight) tested the association between T1 internalized weight bias and T2 physical activity after controlling for province, gender, ethnicity, perceived affluence, age, and T1 physical activity. Adolescents with overweight perceptions reported higher internalized weight bias (ηp 2 = .05) and lower MVPA (ηp 2 = .004) and resistance training (ηp 2 = .01) than adolescents with lower-weight perceptions. For adolescents with underweight and about the right weight perceptions, internalized weight bias was associated with more MVPA [b(SE) = 6.8(3.0); 3.7(1.4)] and resistance training [b(SE) = .33 (.12); .11(.06)] one year later compared to adolescents reporting no internalized weight bias. Physical activity levels were not different across levels of internalized weight bias among adolescents with overweight perceptions. The differing associations between internalized weight bias and physical activity across weight perceptions may relate to broader anti-fat attitudes and experiences of stigma that uniquely impact adolescents with overweight perceptions. Future research should consider the physical activity motivations associated with internalized weight bias. • Limited longitudinal evidence examining IWB and physical activity among adolescents. • Internalized weight bias (IWB) and physical activity associations varied by weight. • IWB related to lower physical activity among underweight and about right perceptions. • Null associations were noted among adolescents with overweight perceptions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".