MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7002082197

Magazine images depicting the ideal fit male body: An outlet for influencing body image perception and exercise related cognitions

2015· article· en· W7002082197 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionIdeal (ethics)CognitionMass mediaBody typeHuman physical appearance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing availability of magazines depicting the ideal male figure, body image concerns and dissatisfactions are becoming more prominent in males (Morry & Staska, 2001). The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of viewing health/fitness and sports magazine images on male body perceptions and exercise related cognitions. Participants (N=280, mean age 36.34, range 18-68 years) were randomly assigned to view magazine images in one of three conditions: image-only, magazine cover, or control. Participants then self-reported internalization, self-objectification, reasons for exercise, and exercise intentions. A series of 3 (condition) by 3 (age) ANOVA analyses were conducted. Participants in the image-only group displayed the greatest level of internalization-general: F(2, 271) = 5.65, p = .004, ?2 = .040. Furthermore, compared to younger or middle aged males, older males reported less internalization-general, F(2, 271) = 15.19, p = .000, ?2 = .101, internalization-athlete, F(2, 271) = 13.07, p = .000, ?2 = .088, and self-objectification, F(2, 271) = 6.13, p = .002, ?2 = .043. These findings suggest that males are not influenced by the media to the same extent as females are. In addition, these findings support claims made by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) regarding the decreasing influence of the media as individuals grow older. The outcomes of this study may help expand research regarding the powerful force of mass media and its influence on consumers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207