Childhood Obesity and Restrictions of Parental Liberty. A Response to "Paternalism, Obesity, and Tolerable Levels of Risk"
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper responds to Michael Merry’s recent contribution on childhood obesity. Merry’s analysis highlights the difficulties in finding an appropriate balance between children’s and parents’ interests in antiobesity interventions and emphasizes the importance of weight stigma and its effects on the obesity debate. He concludes by recommending both a greater focus on policies that address society's contribution to childhood obesity and a greater involvement of obese individuals in the policy debate. This response focuses on three points. First, a more explicit recognition of parents’ interests can support the case for the kinds of policies Merry has in mind. Second, while the perspective of obese individuals may make an important contribution to the policy debate, more direct interventions may be necessary to reduce weight stigma. Third, I consider possible connections between antiobesity interventions that restrict parental liberty and weight stigma.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it