Theorizing health at every size as a relational–cultural endeavour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mainstream dietetics buttresses a conventional weight management agenda that is associated with weight preoccupation, body dissatisfaction, size oppression, and troubled eating. Coterminous with this agenda is healthism, which taken together, impede dietitians’ engagement with a health at every size (HAES) paradigm, a paradigm driven by concern for equality. Yet, HAES has also been critiqued for having healthist tendencies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how HAES might be reimagined through the lens offered by relational cultural theory (RCT) to offer a radical and more socially just vision of dietetic practice. We posit relational–cultural theory as a complementary theoretical perspective to deepen understandings and to politicize HAES-based dietetic practice. We suggest that RCT permits a critical, relational, and political revisioning of the weight-centred canon and elaborates HAES by emphasizing mutual empathy and reciprocal growth within and between the client and practitioner concomitantly. Moreover, questions of power, ethical survival, and knowledge emerge which is what we contend makes it possible for a socially just, nonhealthist HAES practice to flourish.
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".