The weight of communication: The <i>Canadian Medical Association Journal</i>’s discourse on obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this exploratory analysis, I use a Burkean dramatist approach to investigate the relatively under-examined dynamics of how medical knowledge on obesity has changed outside of the American context. I examine how, over the past forty years, Canadian medical professionals have used the Canadian Medical Association Journal to generate a field of knowledge which organizes the ways in which obesity can be described, studied and treated. I argue that since the 1970s medical professionals have been increasingly interested in the relationship between obesity and a broadly defined social environment, and that this merger is rhetorically realized in the concept of the "obesogenic environment." I suggest that the process of engaging obesity has generated rhetoric that has often been resonant with the political ideologies expressed in health policy, but that can also create opportunities for the expression of alternative social goals.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".