Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, in Canada and elsewhere in the West, government spending, media, and health activities focus heavily on “lifestyles” and the “obesity epidemic.” In the last decade, many health and education professionals in Canada have adopted policies to improve health and fitness among youth, seeing them particularly “at risk” for engaging in unhealthy practices. Canada’s Vitality message of learning how to eat well, be active, and feel good about one’s self serves as the health promotion framework guiding our analysis of children’s constructions of health. Adults and youth readily identify with dominant health messages related to eating and being physically active but only rarely acknowledge any sense of embodiment or feeling good. Research with adults, embodiment, and health suggests that feeling good about one’s health and body is an impossible proposition as learning to care for the body is a constant and obligatory individual responsibility with limited possibilities of contentment. Health must be consistently and continuously worked at, making body-related projects a health imperative. We argue that learning how youth feel and experience health in relation to feeling good and pleasure is also imperative given the complex and contested relationships individuals have with health. Based on focus groups with 123 Grade 2 and Grade 4 students in Newfoundland, we use a feminist poststructuralist approach to examine how children understand healthy practices and messages about the ideal “healthy” body. A thematic and performance analysis combining talk, drawings, and talking about the artistic productions reveals children’s complicated relation to health and the body, where pleasure figures centrally and opens up possibilities for alternative conceptions of self and embodiment. We propose a serious investigation of children’s sense of pleasure and “having fun” as a fruitful avenue of research for critical scholars who aim to challenge dominant discourses of health and the body.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".