The Chinese Experience of Embodiment Scale: A psychometric evaluation among college students in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Experience of Embodiment Scale (EES) assesses the quality of positive and negative experiences of living in the body, addressing body connection and comfort, agency and functionality, attuned self care, bodily desires, and freedom from objectification. In Study 1 (399 women, 465 men; age range: 18-26 years; mean = 21.24 years), exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 6-dimensional factor structure among women and men. The Chinese EES demonstrated good internal consistency and reliability (α = 0.94; ω = 0.95). In Study 2 (197 women; 214 men; age range: 18-26 years; mean = 21.49 years), confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the 6-dimensional factor model of EES had adequate fit, and gender invariance was supported. In Study 3 (157 women, 172 men; age range: 18-27 years; mean = 21.52 years), test-retest reliability at a 6 weeks intervals was good among women (ICCs = 0.797-0.887) and men (ICCs = 0.772-0.868). The results showed that the Chinese EES is a valid and reliable tool for measuring the experience of embodiment of Chinese college students.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".