MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1972661102 · doi:10.1080/13573322.2012.716034

Civilising recalcitrant boys' bodies: pursuing social fitness through the anti-obesity offensive

2012· article· en· W1972661102 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lee F. Monaghan

Notice bibliographique

RevueSport Education and Society · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueObesity and Health Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesEconomic and Social Research CouncilAmerican Educational Research Association
Mots-clésCivilityGratitudeOppressionEthnographySociologyOffensiveGender studiesMedia studiesPolitical sciencePoliticsLawPsychologyAnthropologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

AbstractObesity discourse provides a commonly recycled rationale for multiple, ostensibly well-intended, interventions. Formal educational settings sometimes operate as sites for these biopedagogies which putatively promote ‘good health’ among young people as they transition to ‘responsible’ adulthood. Yet, regulation and control, or the pursuit of social fitness, may be more pressing concerns. Drawing from an ethnography of a ‘Health and Youth’ college initiative in Northeast England, directed at recalcitrant boys who risked school exclusion, this article considers how the war on obesity provided a rationale for middle-class efforts to instil civility. Despite educators' best intentions, the initiative also provided a stage and props for cruder forms of bullying among the boys. This article critiques (un)civilised fat oppression in this setting as part of a larger interrogation of the state sponsored anti-obesity offensive. Connections are made with literature on the civilising process, obesity discourse, boys' bodies, health and education.Keywords: Obesity discourseBoys' bodiesRegulationOppressionCivilising processElias AcknowledgementsThis research was funded by the ESRC (grant number: RES-000-22-0784). An earlier version of this article was presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 17 April 2012. I am grateful to Michael Kehler for his invitation, hospitality and for securing funding for that trip. My gratitude also extends to my ethnographic contacts, who will remain anonymous, and the two anonymous reviewers.Notes1. All names are pseudonyms. Field observations, alongside informal ethnographic interviews with staff, were jotted in a notepad and were immediately expanded upon after the field trip using a word processor. These data were analysed using an inductive approach that informed subsequent field trips (e.g. prompting me to ask certain questions in order to obtain clarification or accounts regarding what, at least to me, appeared to be context-specific contradictions). This approach is referred to as analytical induction, and is commonly employed by qualitative researcher working within interpretivist grounded theory traditions.2. Martha received limited funding for her input, though there was a larger financial context to consider. Martha obtained a European grant to develop the fitness centre several years previously. Given an uncertain financial future at the college (there was talk of redundancies) she was concerned about and was highly protective of this facility. In her view, collaborating with various agencies and the community was a defensive move in a context of risk and uncertainty. Such collaborations, she claimed, would render the fitness facility indispensible so that if college management ever deemed it unviable from a financial point of view she felt the local community would become outraged and collectively oppose any managerial decision to close it.3. The two year NHS PCT post was in partnership with the local council. Julie, who was also studying for a Masters degree in Public Health, was subsequently successful in her application, along with five other people.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,266
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,445
Écart entre enseignants0,373 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSport Education and SocietyMême sujetObesity and Health PracticesTravaux en français237 207