MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082920280 · doi:10.1353/jeu.2014.0008

Defining, Managing, and Dictating Children’s Bodies: Discourses of “Good” Food and the Politics of “Growing”

2014· article· en· W2082920280 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lauren Bosc

Bibliographic record

VenueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsSociologyCurriculumRhetoricMedia studiesPolitical scienceLawPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining, Managing, and Dictating Children’s Bodies:Discourses of “Good” Food and the Politics of “Growing” Lauren Bosc (bio) Hodge, Deborah. Up We Grow! A Year in the Life of a Small, Local Farm. Photog. Brian Harris. Toronto: Kids, 2010. 32 pp. $16.95 hc. ISBN 1-55453-561-3. Print. Hodge, Deborah. Watch Me Grow! A Down-to-Earth Look at Growing Food in the City. Photog. Brian Harris. Toronto: Kids, 2011. 32 pp. $16.95 hc. ISBN 1-55453-618-4. Print. In the discourse regarding fat bodies and the construction of “obesity” and “overweight” signifiers, Deborah Lupton suggests that the increased focus on children’s bodies in relation to their size functions as an attempt to “regulate and manage” (42) children generally. In particular, the rhetoric of such governmental interventions as mandatory educational curricula and school lunch programs implemented in elementary and junior high schools has shifted from a focus on fitness and “healthy” food options to a focus on weight control (42). This shift is also apparent in national media outlets such as the Globe and Mail, which published in 2012 an extensive, three-part series on “children’s fitness and education,” beginning with a discussion of “the war on child obesity” as the cornerstone of the series (Hammer and Baluja). Serving as an example of how pervasive the conflation between health and body size is in general public discourse, the article functions to normalize and concretize this conflation as though it is based on empirical evidence. While claims such as “Canadian children are suffering an epidemic of inactivity that contributes to rising obesity rates and weaker academic performance” (Hammer and Baluja) generally are unsubstantiated and contradicted by academic research (Lupton 43), the ideology that grounds them is sustained by the fear associated with the threat of the fat or “obese” child. A number of children’s picture books focusing on “healthy” food choices recently published in Canada can be read usefully within the context of this public [End Page 179] anxiety. These books, among them The Good Garden: How One Family Went from Hunger to Having Enough by Katie Smith Milway, Potatoes on Rooftops: Farming in the City by Hadley Dyer, Down to Earth: How Kids Help Feed the World by Nikki Tate, and Why Are You Doing That? by Elisa Amado and Manuel Monroy, aim to educate children on what is “healthy” to consume, with the ultimate goal of affecting children’s eating habits. My detailed analysis, from a fat studies perspective, of two such books—Up We Grow! A Year in the Life of a Small, Local Farm and Watch Me Grow! A Down-to-Earth Look at Growing Food in the City, both by Deborah Hodge—raises questions as to who is responsible for addressing, defining, or substantiating the notion of “childhood obesity” (Lupton 41) and how they implicate both the children who are to read these books and the adults who purchase them. These texts, published a year apart from each other, can be compared easily in terms of how they communicate the value of food in the context of health while featuring very different contexts, that of eating in the city and in rural communities. While the two books reviewed here do not discuss issues of fatness directly or purport to function as weight-controlling programs for children, they nevertheless are teaching tools for children to learn about food and food production, and both distinguish between food items that are to be valued and considered “healthy” and those that are not. This ascription of value judgments to particular food consumption and production practices works to dictate to children the appropriate way to grow—that is, to grow up and not out. Organized around each season, Hodge’s Up We Grow! provides readers with lots of information regarding the cycle of food production and consumption at a small, community-based farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia. The book, which features full-page, high-quality photographs of the farm and its inhabitants, attempts to bridge an assumed gap in knowledge of readers regarding how food is made and why is it important to foster an “appreciation of the importance of small, local farms...

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.062
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207