MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998628561 · doi:10.7202/018261ar

“Stop Postponing Your Life Until You Lose Weight and Start Living Now”: Vancouver’s Large as Life Action Group, 1979–1985

2008· article· en· W1998628561 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jenny Ellison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingBeautyClothingAction (physics)FemininitySituatedGender studiesPsychologySocial psychologySociologyAestheticsPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vancouver fat acceptance group Large as Life (LAL) was active between 1979 and 1985. The founding members of LAL met at a Gestalt therapy workshop for fat women only in 1979, but ultimately decided that talking was not enough to resolve the problems they experienced on a day-to-day basis. For these women, fat was not just a feeling but a material problem that could be solved through the development of social sites and services that catered to fat women. These would include fitness classes, fashion shows, clothing swaps and personal development workshops. Using interviews with former Large as Life members, together with articles from the group’s newsletter, The Bolster, this paper examines fat women’s perspectives on femininity, health, and fashion in the 1980s. It argues that the shared practices developed among members of Large as Life are an example of the lived complexity of femininity in the 1980s, and, specifically, offers insight into how women experienced and situated themselves in relation to the beauty and bodily norms of the 1980s.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0290.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207