MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548345178 · doi:10.7202/1036667ar

L’institutionnalisation des fat studies : l’impensé des « corps gros » comme modes de subjectivation politique et scientifique

2016· article· fr· W2548345178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Audrey Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches féministes · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article discute de l’institutionnalisation croissante du champ de recherche des fat studies . Entremêlant savoirs militants et connaissances universitaires, ce courant interdisciplinaire et intersectionnel veut dénoncer la discrimination basée sur le poids dans les sociétés occidentales en mettant en avant le vécu des personnes fat . Puisque ces théories et ces pratiques sont peu connues des communautés féministes francophones, en raison d’un déficit de traduction, l’auteure a choisi de présenter certains enjeux liés à la construction sociale des discours sur la « corpulence » et la reconnaissance des « corps gros » comme sujets épistémiques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.506
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.011 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches féministesSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207