Challenging “Size Matters” Messages: An Exploration of the Experiences of Critical Obesity Scholars in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that postsecondary institutions are increasingly seen as sites to promote health, critical scholars are calling attention to how the contemporary Western weight-centred health paradigm reinforces a “size matters” message that is fueling harmful attitudes towards and judgments of bodies. As such, research that highlights strategies to promote safe teaching and learning environments for students and faculty, regardless of body shape and size, is of utmost importance. Through 26 participant interviews, this study examines the experiences of critical obesity scholars who teach courses that engage critical approaches to obesity, fatness, and body size. The findings of this study shed light on the developing field of critical obesity scholarship, the types of challenges faced by critical obesity scholars in higher education, and how these scholars are building community as a way of coping with challenges facing the emerging field.
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 | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| 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".