Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight loss surgery is an increasingly common treatment for medically defined class III obesity and related comorbidities. A rise in demand has resulted in progressively longer waiting times in Canada, lasting upwards of ten years. Extended surgical waits impact the lives of people pursuing the procedure, no doubt – I wonder in what way? What is the experience of waiting to have weight loss surgery? I sought to explore this question using a human science approach to phenomenology of practice. It is within this broader inquiry that this particular text is situated. The multiple interviews I conducted with people who were awaiting surgery revealed the experiential import of contact, of touch, metaphorical and otherwise, to the overall waiting phenomenon. In this paper I consider this particular dimension of the wait – I question the experiences and meanings of contact that occur within the pre-weight loss surgical period. I reflect on the possible ethical and clinical significance of contact within this particular context while focusing on the relational aspect of the phenomenon, particularly between patient and clinician. Ultimately this deeper understanding of the experience as it is lived may elicit new and possibly more tactful ways of being with, of making contact – as in touch, hearing from or connecting with – within weight loss surgery-related clinical encounters.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".