Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThis article seeks to examine the scholarly journal articles and print media that describe the intersections of child protection and pediatric "obesity," arguing that presentations of these cases and related interventions rest at the nexus of dominant discourses of child-centered parenting and fears of the "obesity epidemic." The messaging in both scholarly literature and news media on this topic echoes taken-for-granted truths about fatness and parenting and applies them to the contentious terrain of child welfare. In so doing, this literature reifies myths of both poor parenting and bodily failures and inscribes these failures on the bodies of the children described therein.KEYWORDS: child welfarediscourse analysismother blame"obesity epidemic" Notes1. "Obesity" and "morbid obesity" are not always qualified in these sources, but are sometimes characterized as body mass index over the 99th percentile.2. Scholarly articles were sought through sociology, social sciences, and social work databases, as well as legal databases. Google Scholar was also used. Search terms for both web searches (for news accounts) and scholarly searches included the words "obesity," "child protection," "child welfare," "fat," and "foster care."Additional informationNotes on contributorsMay FriedmanMay Friedman teaches in the School of Social Work at Ryerson University where she studies mothers, fat, transnationalism, and reality TV.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".