Exposed social flesh: Toward an embodied fat pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a small but growing literature has emerged investigating and outlining what a fat studies pedagogy might entail. Missing from much of this literature is a discussion about how the material body becomes a site through which “obesity” discourse is resisted or reproduced in the classroom. The authors attempt to fill this gap by focusing in particular on the educator’s body. They present the deepened understanding that results when three differentially positioned feminist and fat studies educator-scholars engage in a reflexive analysis regarding their experiences of teaching fat pedagogy within the academy. They argue that for educators of a marginalized topic such as fat studies, corporeal risks emerge as classrooms become spaces where the social stigma of fatness intersects with and instigates careful surveillance of (fat) bodies. Each of the authors explores her experiences of these risks, interrogating how her body is voluntarily and involuntarily interpolated (or not) into the epistemological and theoretical frames of fat studies or critical weight curricula to become a site of learning for students. In addition, the authors reflect on how critical weight and fat studies—not only through the offering of critical fat studies literature, but also through students’ readings of their teacher’s flesh, can be used in the university as a means to resist “obesity” ideology and potentiate a reconstituting subjectivity, thus reinforcing a socially just pedagogy that upholds the necessary view that bodies of all shapes and sizes count.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".