MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158265235 · doi:10.1177/0959353512445357

The body economic: The case of ‘childhood obesity’

2012· article· en· W2158265235 on OpenAlexaff
Elisabeth Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminism & Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildhood obesityIdeologyCapitalismObesityPsychological interventionAssertionSociologyNormativeEveryday lifePsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPoliticsMedicinePolitical scienceLawOverweightPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, ‘obesity epidemic’ discourses have begun to focus on the ‘problem’ of ‘childhood obesity.’ Notwithstanding the fact that it is not clear that childhood obesity is a serious health problem, individual fat children are increasingly being targeted by anti-obesity interventions, despite the significant emotional and physical risks inherent in such measures. In order to understand why this is occurring, I operationalise Dorothy E Smith’s (1999) theory of ruling relations in order to draw out the ideological basis and implications of mediated textual representations. Drawing from Law and Mol’s (2002) work on case study methodologies and Titchkosky’s (2007 : 23) assertion that the texts we encounter in everyday life ‘are our world,’ I analyse three appearances of the ‘childhood obesity epidemic’ discourse within articles from online news sources. I find that the world constructed within these articles is one in which fat children’s bodies are understood as economic problems, and the children themselves are regarded as individual failed subjects within the currently dominant ideology of neoliberal capitalism.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0210.063
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFeminism & PsychologySame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207