Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Frost, Franzoi and Oswald (2012) found evidence suggesting that the way individuals evaluate their physical selves, also called body esteem, may have changed over the past quarter century. The findings were particularly strong regarding men's self-evaluations. Because Frost et al.'s (2012) findings focused on the Body Esteem Scale (BES: Franzoi & Shields, 1984), which is a measure that captures dimensions uniquely important to adult self-perception and physical evaluation within a multidimensional and gender-specific framework, one obvious implication of this study is that the BES may need revising in order to remain as current and relevant as possible. With that goal in mind, a series of principal components analyses of the BES responses of 315 women and 353 men were conducted. Results indicated that an addition of a fourth sexuality component, as well as some item level changes were necessary in order for the BES to retain its cultural validity as a body esteem measure in the 21st century for men and women. Strong internal consistency was demonstrated for each revised subscale. New norms and subscale correlations were also computed. Finally, the associations between the revised BES subscales and measures of validity provided further support that the revised BES measures meaningful and important body constructs for women and men, and should continue to do so for the next several years. Cultural implications reflected in BES item changes, and future directions are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".