Fusion, confusion, or illusion: Discursive constructions of health and fitness among second-generation South Asian Canadian women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereotypes emphasizing passivity, docility, and uncleanliness all contribute to cultural (mis)understandings of Canadian women of South Asian background. Such understandings feed dominant racist discourses, including "bodily" discourses related to fitness and health. In turn, such discourses have "effects" in terms of how women approach bodily practices. This study focuses on the constructions of health and fitness among ten 20--25 year old second generation South-Asian Canadian women who now reside in Ottawa or Toronto. Based on conversations with these women, the study focuses on how they construct health and fitness as well as the types of institutional and cultural discourses they draw from. Results show how these women struggle to construct an identity that speaks to their experience of being South Asian Canadian in that they often unsettle, contest, negotiate and resist normative constructions of both "South Asian" and "Canadian" identities. Results also highlight the impact of these negotiations on the young women's constructions of health, and on their position as un/fit and un/healthy subjects within cultural discourses. Insights from this study fill an important gap in the Canadian literature on health and fitness as well as inform contemporary debates regarding health policy and health education programs for South-Asian Canadian women.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".