MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042668768 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2015.302552

The Health at Every Size Paradigm and Obesity: Missing Empirical Evidence May Help Push the Reframing Obesity Debate Forward

2015· article· en· W2042668768 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPublic healthCognitive reframingObesityContext (archaeology)Stigma (botany)Weight stigmaMedicineGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychologyOverweightSocial psychologyPsychiatryPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Health at Every Size (HAES) approach has been proposed to address weight bias and stigma in individuals living with obesity, and more recently articulated as a promising public health approach beyond the prevailing focus on weight status as a health outcome. The purpose of this article is to examine our understanding of HAES within the context of public health approaches to obesity, and to present strengths and limitations of the available evidence. Advancing our understanding of HAES from a public health perspective requires us to move beyond an ideological debate and give greater attention to the need for empirical studies across a range of populations. Only then can the value of HAES, as a weight-neutral, public health approach for the prevention of obesity and other chronic diseases, be fully understood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.241 · 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