The prevalence of negative weight commentary in girls sport and associations with body image and well-being in young adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the prevalence of negative weight commentary across girls sport sources, and the association between weight commentary and body image (appearance and fitness shame, guilt, envy, embarrassment, pride) and psychological well-being (depression, internalized weight bias, self-esteem) in young adulthood. Women who played adolescent sport [ N = 124, M age = 21.48 (1.39)] retrospectively reported experiences of negative weight commentary in sport and current body image and psychological well-being via survey. Multivariate analyses of variance were used to test differences between women with and without negative weight commentary histories during sport. Over 70% of women reported negative weight comments during sport, most commonly from parents (44.4%). Negative weight commentary was associated with higher appearance shame ( η p 2 = 0.12), guilt ( η p 2 = 0.07), embarrassment ( η p 2 = 0.07), depression ( η p 2 = 0.08) and internalized weight bias ( η p 2 = 0.09) in young adulthood. These findings support the need for weight-inclusive policies and training to improve girls sport experiences and outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".