Bodily discourses and Canadian youths' meanings of health, fitness, body and appearance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explores the discursive constructions of health, the narratives about the body and appearance as well as the meanings of fitness among Canadian youth from English- and French-language high schools as well as from the Portuguese-Canadian community in Ottawa, Canada. Small group discussions and a "write and draw" schedule were used to gather qualitative materials among 63 youth aged between 13-15 years. Qualitative materials were submitted first to thematic analysis followed by a discourse analysis method informed by feminist postructuralist theory. In the first instance, participants were found to construct health mostly as a corporeal notion and as something under their responsibility: health was discursively constructed as "being physically active," "not being too fat or too skinny," "eating well" and "avoiding bad habits." Although no major linguistic or ethnic differences were observed between participants in how they discursively constructed health, gender differences were noticed in discussions of body weight. Furthermore, it was revealed that most participants adopted subject positions within dominant bodily discourses, including the discourses of obesity and personal responsibility for health. Another area explored in this study was the participants' narratives of the body and appearance. It was found that these young people discuss their body and appearance in a way that is very much tied up with larger discourses of beauty and the so-called "obesity epidemic." In addition, the results highlight how most of the participants want something they do not have, which is a different body. Major gender differences were observed, as male participants wanted to be taller and more muscular, while female participants wanted to lose weight. Although gender differences were observed, no major ethnic or linguistic differences were noted in their narratives about the body and appearance. The last area explored in this study was the participants' meanings of fitness. Four major themes emerged from the participants' narratives. Regardless of language or ethnic background, for these youth, fitness meant "being physically active," "a way to stay healthy," "a way to look good" and/or "a disease prevention strategy." Meanings of fitness were gendered with female participants resisting the conventional ideas associated with fitness and male participants appropriating them. While conveying their meanings of fitness, participants generally located themselves at the intersection of complementary dominant discourses (of healthism, beauty, and obesity) and constructed normative gender subjectivities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".