Normal Eating Is Counter‐Cultural: Embodied Experiences of Eating Disorder Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Standards for eating disorder recovery, although they originate in life‐saving methods, may be unattainable for certain individuals. We used narrative thematic analysis to explore the stories of 10 young women in eating disorder recovery. Participants' narratives highlight the complexity and counter‐cultural nature of navigating prescriptions for recovery in a sociocultural context that privileges some bodies and food‐related behaviours over others. Our main themes were materiality of eating disorders recovery, beyond biometrics, embodying counter‐culture, embodying recovery and authenticity/invisibility. Our analysis reveals a biopedagogy of eating disorder recovery, which offers individuals in recovery sets of instructions for how to be healthy that run in opposition to dominant prescriptions for health. These findings help us better understand the lived experience of eating disorder recovery, highlighting difficulties of recovering in a culture that moralizes food and bodies. Further investigating how standards for recovery intersect with dominant discourses for healthy living could help to support individuals in recovery. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".