MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of Professional Development About Weight-Related Issues for Pre-Service Teachers: A Pilot Study

2012· article· en· W82602834 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Shelly Russell‐Mayhew, Alana Ireland, Gavin Peat

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyProfessional developmentService (business)Focus groupFaculty developmentSample (material)Medical educationApplied psychologyPedagogyMedicineSociologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many teachers do not have a working knowledge of body image or weight issues. This pilot project examined body image satisfaction and eating/weight-related behaviours before and after a professional in-service with physical education pre-service teachers (N = 16). At the three- month follow-up, measures were repeated and qualitative data (critical incidents and a focus group) about the impact on teaching practice was collected. Results showed no significant changes, however pre-service teachers indicated (a) attempting to lose weight or gain muscle (despite many being in a healthy weight range), and (b) having a biased approach to weight-related issues. Pre-service teachers, particularly those specializing in physical education, are not immune to cultural messages that perpetuate the thin ideal. Future evaluation with a larger sample that formally measures implicit and explicit weight-bias is needed. Providing professional development for pre-service teachers may promote more positive practice about body image, weight-bias, and weight/eating-related concerns in schools.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207