MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2082920280 · doi:10.1353/jeu.2014.0008

Defining, Managing, and Dictating Children’s Bodies: Discourses of “Good” Food and the Politics of “Growing”

2014· article· en· W2082920280 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lauren Bosc

Notice bibliographique

RevueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueObesity and Health Practices
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Winnipeg
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoliticsSociologyCurriculumRhetoricMedia studiesPolitical scienceLawPedagogy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Defining, Managing, and Dictating Children’s Bodies:Discourses of “Good” Food and the Politics of “Growing” Lauren Bosc (bio) Hodge, Deborah. Up We Grow! A Year in the Life of a Small, Local Farm. Photog. Brian Harris. Toronto: Kids, 2010. 32 pp. $16.95 hc. ISBN 1-55453-561-3. Print. Hodge, Deborah. Watch Me Grow! A Down-to-Earth Look at Growing Food in the City. Photog. Brian Harris. Toronto: Kids, 2011. 32 pp. $16.95 hc. ISBN 1-55453-618-4. Print. In the discourse regarding fat bodies and the construction of “obesity” and “overweight” signifiers, Deborah Lupton suggests that the increased focus on children’s bodies in relation to their size functions as an attempt to “regulate and manage” (42) children generally. In particular, the rhetoric of such governmental interventions as mandatory educational curricula and school lunch programs implemented in elementary and junior high schools has shifted from a focus on fitness and “healthy” food options to a focus on weight control (42). This shift is also apparent in national media outlets such as the Globe and Mail, which published in 2012 an extensive, three-part series on “children’s fitness and education,” beginning with a discussion of “the war on child obesity” as the cornerstone of the series (Hammer and Baluja). Serving as an example of how pervasive the conflation between health and body size is in general public discourse, the article functions to normalize and concretize this conflation as though it is based on empirical evidence. While claims such as “Canadian children are suffering an epidemic of inactivity that contributes to rising obesity rates and weaker academic performance” (Hammer and Baluja) generally are unsubstantiated and contradicted by academic research (Lupton 43), the ideology that grounds them is sustained by the fear associated with the threat of the fat or “obese” child. A number of children’s picture books focusing on “healthy” food choices recently published in Canada can be read usefully within the context of this public [End Page 179] anxiety. These books, among them The Good Garden: How One Family Went from Hunger to Having Enough by Katie Smith Milway, Potatoes on Rooftops: Farming in the City by Hadley Dyer, Down to Earth: How Kids Help Feed the World by Nikki Tate, and Why Are You Doing That? by Elisa Amado and Manuel Monroy, aim to educate children on what is “healthy” to consume, with the ultimate goal of affecting children’s eating habits. My detailed analysis, from a fat studies perspective, of two such books—Up We Grow! A Year in the Life of a Small, Local Farm and Watch Me Grow! A Down-to-Earth Look at Growing Food in the City, both by Deborah Hodge—raises questions as to who is responsible for addressing, defining, or substantiating the notion of “childhood obesity” (Lupton 41) and how they implicate both the children who are to read these books and the adults who purchase them. These texts, published a year apart from each other, can be compared easily in terms of how they communicate the value of food in the context of health while featuring very different contexts, that of eating in the city and in rural communities. While the two books reviewed here do not discuss issues of fatness directly or purport to function as weight-controlling programs for children, they nevertheless are teaching tools for children to learn about food and food production, and both distinguish between food items that are to be valued and considered “healthy” and those that are not. This ascription of value judgments to particular food consumption and production practices works to dictate to children the appropriate way to grow—that is, to grow up and not out. Organized around each season, Hodge’s Up We Grow! provides readers with lots of information regarding the cycle of food production and consumption at a small, community-based farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia. The book, which features full-page, high-quality photographs of the farm and its inhabitants, attempts to bridge an assumed gap in knowledge of readers regarding how food is made and why is it important to foster an “appreciation of the importance of small, local farms...

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,057
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,113

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0160,062
Communication savante0,0100,011
Science ouverte0,0010,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,352
Écart entre enseignants0,339 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
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

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesMême sujetObesity and Health PracticesTravaux en français237 207