Paging Dr. Economicus: The Economics of ‘Obesity’ in the Canadian Medical Association Journal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on Rose’s (1999) theory of advanced liberal governance, this study examines the introduction of economic rhetoric into the Canadian Medical Association’s discourse on ‘obesity’ policy and considers the positioning of the fat subject within this discourse. Following Clarke’s (2007) suggestion that the subordination of the social to the economic in a neoliberal policy environment is imperfect and contested, I argue that there is evidence to suggest that the CMA has at times adapted an economized ‘obesity’ discourse to introduce the values of equity and social inclusiveness to policy debates. However, I suggest that existing debates in public health discourse need to be challenged and expanded in order to adequately acknowledge the problems of weight-based prejudice and discrimination.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".