Weighing in on the health and ethical implications of British Columbia's weight-centered health paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promotion of the weight-centered health paradigm through weight reduction policies and programs may lead to negative health outcomes such as eating disorders, mental health issues and harms from weight cycling and social stigmatization.This study asked why the weight-centered paradigm is uncritically relied upon in public policy and identified effective alternatives to it.Methods used to explore this were discourse analysis of policy documents, case studies of research on Health at Every Size and stakeholder interviews to evaluate policy alternatives.Three policy options are recommended for government adoption: i) weight bias training for health care professionals; ii) framing health promotion in "healthy weight" not "obesity reduction" language; and iii) ensuring health surveillance is not limited to measuring weight alone and involves tracking for unintended outcomes (e.g.eating disorders).A further recommendation suggests that eating disorder prevention professionals take a lead role in advocating for health-rather than weight-centered approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".